Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016.04.04 Council Meeting PacketPage 5-9 10 - 11 12-16 17-21 22-25 26-32 Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m. (a) Pledge of Allegiance April 4, 2016 3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion (in the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by Council members or the public, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately. (a) Approval of Minutes To approve the Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated March 21, 2016. (b) Bills and Communications To approve claims in the total amount of $3,332,310.26 ($1,586,469.08 in Check Nos. 208973-209189; $1,143,577.58 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 809420-809494, 809501-809502, 809504-809616, 809622-809839; $35,384.23 in Check Nos. 49032-49070; $564,879.37 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30092401-30092870; $2,000.00 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 234. (c) I Final Plat: Three Rivers West, Phase 3 (MF# FP 2016-002) To approve the Final Plat for Three Rivers West, Phase 3. (d) I Final Plat: Tierra Vida No. 2, Phase 2 (MF# FP 2016-001) To approve the Final Plat for Tierra Vida No. 2, Phase 2. (e) I Final Acceptance: 2014-2015 ADA Retrofit To approve Resolution No. 3701, accepting the work performed by C&E Trenching, LLC, under contract for the 2014-2015 ADA Retrofit project. (f) W Street Vacation: A Portion of East Salt Lake Street (MF# VAC 2016- 006) Page 1 of 336 Regular Meeting April 4, 2016 To approve Resolution No. 3702, a resolution setting 7:00 P.M., Monday, May 2, 2016, as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of East Salt Lake Street. (RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read. 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: 5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: This item is provided to allow citizens the opportunity to bring items to the attention of the City Council or to express an opinion on an issue. Its purpose is not to provide a venue for debate or for the posing of questions with the expectation of an immediate response. Some questions require consideration by Council over time and after a deliberative process with input from a number of different sources; some questions are best directed to staff members who have access to specific information. Citizen comments will normally be limited to three minutes each by the Mayor. Those with lengthy messages are invited to summarize their comments and/or submit written information for consideration by the Council outside of formal meetings. 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers 7. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: 33-197 (a) ® Rezone Appeal: R-1 to R-3 Rezone Under MF # 2015-006 (MF# APPL 2016-001) CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4278, an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, rezoning a parcel of land in the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M., from R-1 (Low -Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) with a concomitant agreement, and further, authorize publication by summary only. 198-204 (b) M Street Vacation: A Portion of 24th Ave. (Pasco School District) (MF # VAC 2016-003) CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4279, a ordinance vacating a portion of 24th Avenue, and further, authorize publication by summary only. Page 2 of 336 205-210 211 - 221 222-244 245-270 271 -292 293 -295 296-336 Regular Meeting April 4, 2016 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: (a) City View Cemetery Regulations - Amend PMC 2.48 MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4276, amending PMC Sections 2.48.075, 2.48.150, 2.48.160 and 2.48.170 regarding regulations governing City View Cemetery and, further, authorize publication by summary only. (b) ® Annexation: Mullen Annexation (MF# ANX 2016-003) MOTION) move to approve Resolution No. 3703, accepting a Notice of Intent to commence annexation proceedings for the Mullen Annexation Area and providing a determination on the boundary, zoning and indebtedness related thereto. (c) ® Special Permit: Cooley Preschool (MF# SP 2016-002) MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3704, approving a special permit for the location of a preschool located at 4818 W Irving Street, as recommended by the Planning Commission. (d) 0 Special Permit: Location of a Church in a C-1 Zone (MF# SP 2016- 001) MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3705, a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and approving a Special Permit for the location of a church in the 6600 block of Chapel Hill Boulevard. (e) ® Special Permit: Valdivia Daycare (MF# SP 2016-003) MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3706, approving a special permit for the location of a daycare center at 3503 W Sylvester Street, as recommended by the Planning Commission. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 10. NEW BUSINESS: (a) Broadmoor Area Master Plan/Planned Action SEPA Professional Service Agreement MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Service Agreement with Hansen Design for the Broadmoor Area Master Plan and Planned Action SEPA Analysis, and further, authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. (b) 1 Collective Bargaining Agreement with IAFF, Local 1433 MOTION: I move to approve the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Page 3 of 336 Regular Meeting April 4, 2016 IAFF, Local 1433 for years 2016-2017 and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 13. ADJOURNMENT. (RC) Roll Call Vote Required * Item not previously discussed Q Quasi -Judicial Matter MF# "Master File #...." REMINDERS: 1:30 p.m., Monday, April 4, TRIOS — Emergency Medical Services Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN, Rep.; AL YENNEY, Alt.) 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 6, 2601 N. Capitol Avenue — Franklin County Mosquito Control District Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; AL YENNEY, Alt.) This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance. Page 4 of 336 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager FROM: Rick Terway, Director Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes I. REFERENCE(S): Minutes 03.21.16 March 23, 2016 Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: To approve the Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated March 21, 2016. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: V. DISCUSSION: Page 5 of 336 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL MARCH 21, 2016 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Rebecca Francik, Mike Garrison, Tom Larsen, Saul Martinez, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney. Excused: Robert Hoffmann. Staff present: Dave Zabell, City Manager; Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager; Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Richard Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director; Bob Metzger, Police Chief and Bob Gear, Fire Chief. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of Minutes To approve the Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated March 7, 2016. Bills and Communications To approve claims in the total amount of $2,454,974.01 ($1,157,774.63 in Check Nos. 208750-208972; $686,434.44 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 809496- 809500, 809503, 809617-809621; $29,190.15 in Check Nos. 49008-49031; $572,621.40 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30091933-30092400; $8,953.39 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 231-233). To approve bad debt write-off for Utility Billing, Ambulance, Cemetery, General Accounts, Miscellaneous Accounts, and Municipal Court (non- criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of $294,064.18 and, of that amount, authorize $211,613.33 be turned over for collection. Fire and Ambulance Medical Services Program Master Plan To approve the contract with Emergency Services Consulting International for the Fire and Ambulance Medical Services Program Master Plan, and further, authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Interlocal Agreement for Economic Development Services To approve the Interlocal Agreement with the Port of Pasco for Economic Development Services and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. Financial Support for Legal Work on Possible Turnback of USACE Lands to Cities To authorize $1,000 for Pasco's share of the cost of writing legislation requesting turn back of federal land to local governments. Page 1 of 4 Page 6 of 336 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL MARCH 21, 2016 Tourism Promotion Area Reserve Fund Request To approve the Tourism Reserve Balance request for the Tourism Promotion Area in the amount of $283,000. Water Follies Agreement To approve the five-year agreement with Tri -City Water Follies Association for the annual Water Follies event. Annexation: Mullen Annexation (MF# ANX 2016-003) To set 7:00 pm, April 4, 2016 as the time and date for a public meeting to consider the Mullen Notice of Intent to annex 162 acres located east of Broadmoor Boulevard and north of Power Line Road. Street & Alley Vacation: Block 104 NP Plat (MF# VAC 2016-004) To approve Resolution No. 3697, a resolution setting 7:00 P.M., Monday, April 18, 2016, as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating all alleys and portions of street in and around Block 104, NP Plat. Street Vacation: A Portion of West Henry Street (MF# VAC 2016-005) To approve Resolution No. 3698, a resolution setting 7:00 P.M., Monday, April 18, 2016, as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of West Henry Street. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: Gabriel Portugal, 804 Rd. 52, invited Council to the LULAC Civil Rights Forum on Saturday April 9th. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: Mr. Yenney reported on the Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund special meeting, the Benton Franklin Council of Governments meeting and the Council Retreat. Mayor Watkins reported on the Council Retreat. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: Street Vacation: A Portion of S. Walnut Ave. (MF# VAC 2016-002) Mr. White explained the details of the proposed vacation. Mayor Watkins declared the Public Hearing open to consider the proposed vacation. Following three calls for comments, and there being none, Mayor Watkins declared the Public Hearing closed. Page 2 of 4 Page 7 of 336 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL MARCH 21, 2016 MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4275, an ordinance vacating a portion of South Walnut Avenue, and further, authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: City View Cemetery Regulations - Amend PMC 2.48 Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed ordinance. Blaze Titus, owner of Hillcrest -Bruce Lee Memorial Center, believes any city agreements with the headstone vendors should not be exclusive. MOTION: Mr. Yenney moved to table this issue for 2 weeks for staff to resolve any vendor exclusivity issues. Mr. Larsen seconded. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: Yes - Yenney, Francik, Garrison, Larsen, Martinez. No - Watkins. Reimbursement of Costs and Fee for Collection Administration for Developer Reimbursement (Latecomer) Agreements Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed ordinance. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4277, amending PMC 3.07.180 "Public Works Agreements Inspections" setting the Developer Reimbursement Agreements application fee; amending PMC 14.12.120 "City Administrative Fee, Costs and Recording"; and amending PMC 14.12.130 "Payment of Development Reimbursement Charge" to provide for the collection of an administration fee and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Renaming US Highway 395 to Thomas Steven Foley Memorial Highway MOTION: Mr. Martinez moved to approve Resolution No. 3699, requesting the Washington State Transportation Commission commence proceedings to name US Highway 395, from the Washington/Oregon border to the Washington/Canada border, as the Thomas Stephen "Tom" Foley Memorial Highway. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Sole Source Purchase of Paco Pumps for the East Side Booster Station Upgrade (BS 2.1) MOTION: Mr. Martinez moved to approve Resolution No. 3700, waiving the competitive bidding requirement for the purchase of two (2) Paco LF Series End Suction Centrifugal Pumps from Pump Tech, Inc., and authorize the purchase. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Purchase of Real Property Mr. Strebel explained the details of the proposed purchase and sale agreement. MOTION: Mr. Martinez moved to approve the purchase and sale agreement for the property at 4803 West Octave Street, to authorize the City Manager to execute the document and, further, to take all other action necessary to complete the transaction. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Page 3 of 4 Page 8 of 336 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL MARCH 21, 2016 ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. APPROVED: Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra Clark, City Clerk PASSED and APPROVED this 4th day of April, 2016 Page 4 of 4 Page 9 of 336 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager FROM: Ron Musson, Interim Finance Manager Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Bills and Communications I. REFERENCE(S): Accounts Payable 04.04.16 March 31, 2016 Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: To approve claims in the total amount of $3,332,310.26 ($1,586,469.08 in Check Nos. 208973-209189; $1,143,577.58 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 809420-809494, 809501- 809502, 809504-809616, 809622-809839; $35,384.23 in Check Nos. 49032-49070; $564,879.37 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30092401-30092870; $2,000.00 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 234. III. FISCAL IMPACT: V. DISCUSSION: Page 10 of 336 CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of: April 4, 2016 Accounts Payable Approved The City Council City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington We, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury the materials have been furnished, the services rendered or the labor performed as described herein and the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation against the city and we are authorized to authenticate and certify to such claim. Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick Terway, A&CS Director We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify on this 4th day of April, 2016 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and are approved for payment: Claims Bank Payroll Bank Check Numbers 208973-209189 49032-49070 Total Check Amount $1,586,469.08 $35,384.23 Electronic Transfer Numbers 809420-809494 30092401-30092870 809501-809502 809504-809616 809622-809839 Total EFT Amount $1,143,577.58 $564,879.37 Councilmember Gen'I Bank Electronic Bank 234 $2,000.00 $0.00 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: GENERALFUND STREET ARTERIAL STREET STREET OVERLAY C.D. BLOCK GRANT HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT NSP GRANT MARTIN LUTHER KING COMMUNITY CENTER AMBULANCE SERVICE CEMETERY ATHLETIC PROGRAMS GOLF COURSE SENIOR CENTER OPERATING MULTI -MODAL FACILITY SCHOOL IMPACT FEES RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LODGING LITTER ABATEMENT REVOLVING ABATEMENT TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING PARKS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER LID GENERAL CAP PROJECT CONSTRUCTION UTILITY, WATER/SEWER EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT BUSINESS MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE FLEX PAYROLL CLEARING GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: Combined Total Checks $ 1,621,853.31 Total EFTs $ 1,710,456.95 Grand Total $ 3,332,310.26 Councilmember 843,288.70 34,679.60 0.00 0.00 5,591.85 0.00 0.00 1,670.85 11,083.26 4,042.64 4,763.26 61,526.00 3,482.06 1,884.14 0.00 268.18 22,039.70 0.00 424.50 20, 836.50 0.00 174, 030.40 10,341.06 0.00 88, 801.40 727,565.25 5,754.23 11,675.53 2,131.28 46, 507.95 247, 078.14 8,621.47 994,222.31 $ 3,332,310.26 Page 11 of 336 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 24, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Final Plat: Three Rivers West, Phase 3 (MF# FP 2016-002) I. REFERENCE(S): Overview Map Vicinity Map Final Plat IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve the Final Plat for Three Rivers West, Phase 3. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On April 7, 2014 the Council approved Resolution # 3542 approving a preliminary plat for the Three Rivers West development. The developer is now seeking final plat approval for Phase 3. Three Rivers West subdivision is a single-family residential development located west of Convention Drive and north of Sandifur Parkway. The development contains 188 single-family lots with an average lot size of 8,151 square feet. The third phase of the subdivision contains 40 lots. V. DISCUSSION: Prior to the approval of a final plat, the developer is to either install all infrastructure or post a bond or other instrument that secures the financing for the infrastructure Page 12 of 336 improvements. In this case, the developer has completed all the improvements. The final plat shows and contains information on primary control points, tract boundaries, dimensions, bearings, lot numbers and other necessary survey data. In addition, the plat contains the required descriptions, dedication and acknowledgment and approval sections. Page 13 of 336 �J IJ YHR E IN�WERE VYF=87 = FIHABF= 3 �P ` Ro �t JNro-01? r II 36 I I II 37 12 I 10 I 9 II i 5 1 11 4 1 3 1 Located In The N.E. 1/4, Of Sec. 9, T. 9 N., R. 29 E., W.M. ,I I 39 40 44 5�2 45 POWDER DRIVE - \ -\-_ _---- ----------------------- i �,. . �+I fl I �� it � fl -I fl 46 1 � I �u----- ----� ,3 27 28 48 I I I 1'° '� I II„ ,i I � F1-�i Fi•-li � I;I � I I � , I � 47 I ' r ISI I I I I;11 ;li 29 1 1 i1 14 26 20 li ii ;i t .I 21 Iu 'I I II 30 r !11 15 25 I 19 li ii 'i I 1 Ilu ;II 22 Ili ii I'I"I------- � II I Z 1 - o Q 31 I J 16 iu 23 16 24 161 1 1 1 O 1 32 - I,; W Z � J 117 III 11 ;'il 24 17 23 t Y 33 1 n l 11 16 Ilii O ;i 25 — II LL 1 18 ISI ii W 22 1 lir------- f; J 1 Q 1 34 Ililii IO ;il I 1 15 lin 26 1 ,I I g II 1s n ,I I11 ,I 21 I I 35 14 Ill ii ,i 27 n ,I /In / n I PO / i / �- - - - - - - ISI Ilil I -- I 73 li n 28 OPPVR`v� / 36 1 .i i III ii ,I VMP / 72 li ii li 29 37 38 1-------� 1 i'� 1 IIII II % 39 -� \\ S�' I li a 30 1 1 40 r 11 ii 1 s 10 1,I g 31 7 FINE 32 i Utility Locate Call 811 2 Business Days Before Digging 1 I I General Notes: Owner/Developer: Nathan Machicla Hayden Homes 2464 SW Glacier Place, Suite 110 Redmond, OR 97756 (509) 554-0858 Topographic survey data provided by HDJ Design Group, PLLC 2014. The bench mark is a 3" brass cap located at the intersection of Road 68 and Sandifur Parkway. Elevation 513.15, City of Pasco Datum (PSI 16-1). The Contractor shall schedule a preconstruction meeting with the City Engineer, (509) 545-3444, at least 2 weeks prior to the start of any construction activity. 48 hour notice to the City of Pasco, (509) 545-3444, is required prior to any activity within the City right-of-way or any activity involving City irrigation, sewer, storm, or water. A minimum of two business days prior to beginning construction, the Contractor shall call 811 (Utility Locate) for location mark up of existing utilities. Contractor shall provide traffic control plan(s) in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as required prior to disruption of any traffic. A traffic plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. No work shall commence until all approved traffic control is in place. Traffic control plan shall be submitted three (3) working days prior to set up. At the end of each day, the contractor shall be responsible for returning the entire width of the traveled roadway back to complete vehicular travel. This shall include, but not limited to, all trenches back filled or covered with devices approved by the City Engineer, all equipment, supplies, and miscellaneous items removed from the right-of-way. Erosion, sediment, and air quality control shall comply with Franklin County air quality control ordinances, and the notes and details on these plans. Trench excavation within the project will comply with Washington State Department of Labor and Industries Safety Standards for Construction Work, Part N, Excavation, Trenching, and Shoring (WAC 296-155-650 thru WAC 296-155-66411). Site grading, street, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and potable water system construction, materials, and workmanship shall conform to the "2014 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction" M41-10 and the 2015 Construction Standards of the City of Pasco Public Works Department. Irrigation system construction, materials, and workmanship shall conform to the standards and practices of the City of Pasco, and the details and notes shown in this plan set. Irrigation systems shall be run along the front of the lots within the right-of-way. Each service shall be supplied with one spigot in a water meter box located on the opposite corner of the domestic water meter location. All electrical systems, streetlights, and electrical crossing location construction, materials and workmanship shall conform to the latest standards and practices of the Public Utility District of Franklin County. The contractor shall at all times observe and comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations which in any manner affect the conduct or safety of the work. Contractor shall obtain all necessary permits prior to beginning construction. Existing utility locations are approximate and must be verified by the contractor. Other utilities may exist. The contractor shall be responsible for exploration ahead of the work to determine exact utility locations. Prior to construction, the contractor shall locate and verify existing utility locations and elevations where interference with new utilities may occur. Arrangements shall be made with respective utility companies for moving, abandoning, or maintaining their respective services. All final plats shall be done according to PMC 26.28 & 26.32.110 and shall be submitted in a digital format specified by the City Engineer, as well as in hard copy format, for review, prior to acceptance. VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE PLAN APPROVAL CITY OF PASCO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Dy'------------------------- Dat&---- - UTILITIES ENGINEER Bey------------------------- Date'---- TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ENGINEER Dy,------------------------- Date' ---- OPERATIONS DIVISION Dy'------------------------- Date' ---- CITY ENGINEER THE CITY OF PASCO REVIEW IS FOR GENERAL COMPLIANCE WITH CITY DESIGN STANDARDS, CODES, AND ORDINANCES, OMISSION OF COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS BY THE PLAN REVIEW SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE ENGINEER/ARCHITECT OF RECORD FOR THE ADEQUACY OF THE DESIGN AND COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS. SUCH OMITTED REQUIREMENTS MAY BE ENFORCED IN THE FIELD DURING CONSTRUCTIONS IF THEY WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE APPROVED PLANS. Sheet Index 1. COVER SHEET 2. GENERAL NOTES 3. GRADING PLAN 4. RIO GRANDE LANE PLAN & PROFILE 5. RIO GRANDE LANE PLAN & PROFILE 6. UMPQUA DRIVE & WALLOWA LANE PLAN & PROFILE 7. WALLOWA LANE PLAN & PROFILE 8. CITY OF PASCO STANDARD DETAILS AND TYPICAL STREET SECTION 9. SIGNING - STRIPING & ILLUMINATION PLAN E w �m y 9 O % N a m B ISSUED FOR APPROVAL 10/23/15 SG JLM A PRELIMINARY- ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07/08/15 SG JLM No. Revision Date B A 'd General Notes: Owner/Developer: Nathan Machicla Hayden Homes 2464 SW Glacier Place, Suite 110 Redmond, OR 97756 (509) 554-0858 Topographic survey data provided by HDJ Design Group, PLLC 2014. The bench mark is a 3" brass cap located at the intersection of Road 68 and Sandifur Parkway. Elevation 513.15, City of Pasco Datum (PSI 16-1). The Contractor shall schedule a preconstruction meeting with the City Engineer, (509) 545-3444, at least 2 weeks prior to the start of any construction activity. 48 hour notice to the City of Pasco, (509) 545-3444, is required prior to any activity within the City right-of-way or any activity involving City irrigation, sewer, storm, or water. A minimum of two business days prior to beginning construction, the Contractor shall call 811 (Utility Locate) for location mark up of existing utilities. Contractor shall provide traffic control plan(s) in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as required prior to disruption of any traffic. A traffic plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. No work shall commence until all approved traffic control is in place. Traffic control plan shall be submitted three (3) working days prior to set up. At the end of each day, the contractor shall be responsible for returning the entire width of the traveled roadway back to complete vehicular travel. This shall include, but not limited to, all trenches back filled or covered with devices approved by the City Engineer, all equipment, supplies, and miscellaneous items removed from the right-of-way. Erosion, sediment, and air quality control shall comply with Franklin County air quality control ordinances, and the notes and details on these plans. Trench excavation within the project will comply with Washington State Department of Labor and Industries Safety Standards for Construction Work, Part N, Excavation, Trenching, and Shoring (WAC 296-155-650 thru WAC 296-155-66411). Site grading, street, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and potable water system construction, materials, and workmanship shall conform to the "2014 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction" M41-10 and the 2015 Construction Standards of the City of Pasco Public Works Department. Irrigation system construction, materials, and workmanship shall conform to the standards and practices of the City of Pasco, and the details and notes shown in this plan set. Irrigation systems shall be run along the front of the lots within the right-of-way. Each service shall be supplied with one spigot in a water meter box located on the opposite corner of the domestic water meter location. All electrical systems, streetlights, and electrical crossing location construction, materials and workmanship shall conform to the latest standards and practices of the Public Utility District of Franklin County. The contractor shall at all times observe and comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations which in any manner affect the conduct or safety of the work. Contractor shall obtain all necessary permits prior to beginning construction. Existing utility locations are approximate and must be verified by the contractor. Other utilities may exist. The contractor shall be responsible for exploration ahead of the work to determine exact utility locations. Prior to construction, the contractor shall locate and verify existing utility locations and elevations where interference with new utilities may occur. Arrangements shall be made with respective utility companies for moving, abandoning, or maintaining their respective services. All final plats shall be done according to PMC 26.28 & 26.32.110 and shall be submitted in a digital format specified by the City Engineer, as well as in hard copy format, for review, prior to acceptance. VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE PLAN APPROVAL CITY OF PASCO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Dy'------------------------- Dat&---- - UTILITIES ENGINEER Bey------------------------- Date'---- TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ENGINEER Dy,------------------------- Date' ---- OPERATIONS DIVISION Dy'------------------------- Date' ---- CITY ENGINEER THE CITY OF PASCO REVIEW IS FOR GENERAL COMPLIANCE WITH CITY DESIGN STANDARDS, CODES, AND ORDINANCES, OMISSION OF COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS BY THE PLAN REVIEW SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE ENGINEER/ARCHITECT OF RECORD FOR THE ADEQUACY OF THE DESIGN AND COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS. SUCH OMITTED REQUIREMENTS MAY BE ENFORCED IN THE FIELD DURING CONSTRUCTIONS IF THEY WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE APPROVED PLANS. Sheet Index 1. COVER SHEET 2. GENERAL NOTES 3. GRADING PLAN 4. RIO GRANDE LANE PLAN & PROFILE 5. RIO GRANDE LANE PLAN & PROFILE 6. UMPQUA DRIVE & WALLOWA LANE PLAN & PROFILE 7. WALLOWA LANE PLAN & PROFILE 8. CITY OF PASCO STANDARD DETAILS AND TYPICAL STREET SECTION 9. SIGNING - STRIPING & ILLUMINATION PLAN M Q aZ O F z CO Cn ♦♦^^ x W U N a CL u - ') O U WW 2 H Z F/� O W F Q U O O Z Lu W O W > LU T ca W i m > > N O Q DESIGNED SG OCT 2015 3473-03 1 SHEET E w �m y 9 O % N a m �3n' vin NA�oo M Q aZ O F z CO Cn ♦♦^^ x W U N a CL u - ') O U WW 2 H Z F/� O W F Q U O O Z Lu W O W > LU T ca W i m > > N O Q DESIGNED SG OCT 2015 3473-03 1 SHEET AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 24, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Final Plat: Tierra Vida No. 2, Phase 2 (MF# FP 2016-001) I. REFERENCE(S): Overview Map Vicinity Map Final Plat II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve the Final Plat for Tierra Vida No. 2, Phase 2. IH. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On February 2, 2015 the Council approved Resolution # 3615 approving a preliminary plat for the Tierra Vida development. The developer is now seeking final plat approval for Phase 2. Tierra Vida No. 2 is a single-family residential development located north of "A" Street. The development contains 86 single-family lots with an average lot size of 8,727 square feet. Phase 2 contains 49 lots. V. DISCUSSION: Page 17 of 336 Prior to the approval of a final plat, the developer is to either install all infrastructure or post a bond or other instrument that secures the financing for the infrastructure improvements. In this case, the developer has completed all improvements. The final plat shows and contains information on primary control points, tract boundaries, dimensions, bearings, lot numbers and other necessary survey data. In addition, the plat contains the required descriptions, dedication and acknowledgment, and approval sections. Page 18 of 336 Overview Item: Tierra Vida II Phase 2 Map Applicant: Casa LLC N File #. FP 2016-001 -�- - _ - - E LEWIS ST , `� Jif • � e J1 ''TP�NZ ".. .. � . at• � •,� a1 - � glfr�$ .. W. ,.......@.'�Z�° o e V9. \�y ra . ,,:. ,...^ � o �� `. . 4 � y f♦ �'� ��� ,ice w` SITE! "// r �. _� ii- r � i1 s � 1 ♦ h i � �� ! J !! ;? 7.,lY . lr��!`�. \\,\ J A 4 o- 1 '�J& E W ST ---- - Vicin Item: Tierra Vida II Phase 2 ity Applicant: Casa LLC N Map File #. FP 2016-001 7���0'�♦ ���� ��,�sy�� - - . � � �� 1111 �; _-� XN LIJN'A 40 , •� � 40a SITE `\ R N ,a - NT Nnl N :' i S E;M ILLA CT\ wLL '�s' • zB 7 END. 2-1/4" STEEL CAP �IN MON. CASE 3 � N P O 1 LOT 27 11045 SgFt 0,25 AC LOT 26 11737 Sq Ft 0.27 Ac 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 589'36'42"E 120.39 LOT 25 12481 SgFI 0.29 Ac 64.57' -\ 109.1 UNPLATTED uNP ATTED FINAL PLAT OF TIERRA VIDA NO, 2 PI ASE TWO LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 30 EAST, WM CITY OF PASCO, FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON O MARC.. '6 589'36'37"E 1075.12' 106.14' 60.00' 61.58' 61.00' 61.00' 61.00' 61.00' 61.00' 61.00' 61.00' 161.00' 61.00 61,00' 61.77' 69.68' a LOT 26 y ry N N N N N N N N N N N ry 8775 Sq Ft N ,� ,� . 0.20 Ac n "> ^� M •� ul u LOT 29 LOT 30 LOT 31 LOT 32 LOT 33 LOT 34 LOT 35 LOT 36 LOT 37 LOT 38 LOT 39 LOT 40 LOT 41 LOT 42 z <8048 Sq Ft 38329 SgFt 38250 Sq Ft 38250 Sq Ft 118250 Sq Ft 38250 SgFt 38250 Sq Ft 38250 SgFt 38250 S Ft 38250 S Ft 38250 S Ft 38250 S Ft 3 w 0.18 Ac v 0.19 Ac v 0.19 Ac 0.19 Ac a < b < b SqFt 9 a SqFt 9 8302 Sq Ft 8884 42 Ft o < a a v 0.19 Ac v 0.19 Ac C' 0.19 Ac v 0.19 Ac ,�. 0.19 Ac v 0.19 Ac v 0.19 Ac v 0.19 Ac 0.19 Ac _ 0.20 Ac a o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 n _ o a o o a o 0 z C13 \ 0 0 o z m N z �O,�k C12 C/ 40.93' 61.58' 81.00' 61.00' 61.00' 6.1.00 61.00' 61.00' 61.00' 61.00' 61.00 61.00E 0' S C 00 C _ L U N A D R I V E 10' UTILITY - - _ _ EASEMENT M689'36'42"E 349.68' 589'36'42"E 490.83' C38UM6075_ 60.75_ 60.75_ 49.38' O� .y0 50.51' 6843_ 68_43_ 68_43' 68.43' 6_47.88' C36 O \Cly CL8/ L52 1 w - 0 0 0 0I 0 0 70' UTILITY o o ry o o z o o e o EASEMENT o 6 05 � m ro ro o o LOT 23 f LOT 22 f LOT 21 f LOT 20 f LOT 19 m LOT 49 w LOT 48 3 LOT 47 w LOT 46 w LOT 45 w LOT 44 w LOT 43 w 7951 SgFt 37776 SgFt _ 7776 SgFt 37776 SgFt 38828 SgFt 'N ¢ m 7648 SgFt 7527 SgFt io 7527 SgFt m 7527 SgFt w 7527 SgFt m 7527 SgFt 7518 SgFt oc 0.18 Ac 0.17 Ac 0.17 Ac No 0.17 Acw0.18 Ac 0.18 Ac 0.18 Ac 0.18 Ac 4 0.20 Ac N 0.17 Ac nN GAS Ac N0.17 AcroO O N O O N z N Z Z Z Z L61 Z O z 70.00' 68.43' 68.43' S8936'42"E 468.43' 68.43' 68.43' 57.82' � ^ 69.97' 2"E 56 L68 L55 L67 L54 L66 L65 L64 L53 L63 3 m M 0 e a 0 y 0 0 0 0 LOT 13 LOT 14 °c LOT 15 tti m 8643 Sq Ft w 7654 SgFt w7520 SgFt N N m 0.20 Ac 0.18 Ac w 0.17 Ac LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 78 r !"7520 Sq Ft a7520 Sq Ft 8611 Sq Ft N m 0.17 Ac m 0.17 Ac 0.20 Ac o M n M Nl Z N N N N C24\ Z Z Z z / C23 h Y � L57 58.75' 58.757 58.75' 48.20' _01 O 3 TRACT 'A' Ko \� - SEMILLA COURT - ¢ "N'.."�' PARK AREA Sg - 0 229688 S.F. 589°36'42"E 351.48' m '� 5.27 ACRES a 58.75' 58.75' 58.75' LOT 11 LOT 12 2. DELTA m 12736 SgFt `?3. 18:12 180.00 0.29 Ac F 0 d\" NO 180.00 N Q PPG 10 1� b N 20.00 LOT 17 565'31'01"E 3 C12 N69.1 55.00 ry 14432'26"W LOT 10 52.92 o LOT 8 W f n 6 130. - 12558 SqF7784 39.12 )4, N 37618 SqFt 37617 SgFt 30.29 w LOT 11 55.00 w 0.17 Ac 10321 SgFt 0.17 g"1 o 0.17 Ac 0.24 Ac I� 39.12 99 /1241 46.41 55,00 a N6E22'11"E 45.04 C19 UNPLATTED uNP ATTED FINAL PLAT OF TIERRA VIDA NO, 2 PI ASE TWO LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 30 EAST, WM CITY OF PASCO, FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON O MARC.. '6 589'36'37"E 1075.12' 106.14' 60.00' 61.58' 61.00' 61.00' 61.00' 61.00' 61.00' 61.00' 61.00' 161.00' 61.00 61,00' 61.77' 69.68' a LOT 26 y ry N N N N N N N N N N N ry 8775 Sq Ft N ,� ,� . 0.20 Ac n "> ^� M •� ul u LOT 29 LOT 30 LOT 31 LOT 32 LOT 33 LOT 34 LOT 35 LOT 36 LOT 37 LOT 38 LOT 39 LOT 40 LOT 41 LOT 42 z <8048 Sq Ft 38329 SgFt 38250 Sq Ft 38250 Sq Ft 118250 Sq Ft 38250 SgFt 38250 Sq Ft 38250 SgFt 38250 S Ft 38250 S Ft 38250 S Ft 38250 S Ft 3 w 0.18 Ac v 0.19 Ac v 0.19 Ac 0.19 Ac a < b < b SqFt 9 a SqFt 9 8302 Sq Ft 8884 42 Ft o < a a v 0.19 Ac v 0.19 Ac C' 0.19 Ac v 0.19 Ac ,�. 0.19 Ac v 0.19 Ac v 0.19 Ac v 0.19 Ac 0.19 Ac _ 0.20 Ac a o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 n _ o a o o a o 0 z C13 \ 0 0 o z m N z �O,�k C12 C/ 40.93' 61.58' 81.00' 61.00' 61.00' 6.1.00 61.00' 61.00' 61.00' 61.00' 61.00 61.00E 0' S C 00 C _ L U N A D R I V E 10' UTILITY - - _ _ EASEMENT M689'36'42"E 349.68' 589'36'42"E 490.83' C38UM6075_ 60.75_ 60.75_ 49.38' O� .y0 50.51' 6843_ 68_43_ 68_43' 68.43' 6_47.88' C36 O \Cly CL8/ L52 1 w - 0 0 0 0I 0 0 70' UTILITY o o ry o o z o o e o EASEMENT o 6 05 � m ro ro o o LOT 23 f LOT 22 f LOT 21 f LOT 20 f LOT 19 m LOT 49 w LOT 48 3 LOT 47 w LOT 46 w LOT 45 w LOT 44 w LOT 43 w 7951 SgFt 37776 SgFt _ 7776 SgFt 37776 SgFt 38828 SgFt 'N ¢ m 7648 SgFt 7527 SgFt io 7527 SgFt m 7527 SgFt w 7527 SgFt m 7527 SgFt 7518 SgFt oc 0.18 Ac 0.17 Ac 0.17 Ac No 0.17 Acw0.18 Ac 0.18 Ac 0.18 Ac 0.18 Ac 4 0.20 Ac N 0.17 Ac nN GAS Ac N0.17 AcroO O N O O N z N Z Z Z Z L61 Z O z 70.00' 68.43' 68.43' S8936'42"E 468.43' 68.43' 68.43' 57.82' � ^ 69.97' 2"E 56 L68 L55 L67 L54 L66 L65 L64 L53 L63 3 m M 0 e a 0 y 0 0 0 0 LOT 13 LOT 14 °c LOT 15 tti m 8643 Sq Ft w 7654 SgFt w7520 SgFt N N m 0.20 Ac 0.18 Ac w 0.17 Ac LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 78 r !"7520 Sq Ft a7520 Sq Ft 8611 Sq Ft N m 0.17 Ac m 0.17 Ac 0.20 Ac o M n M Nl Z N N N N C24\ Z Z Z z / C23 h Y � L57 58.75' 58.757 58.75' 48.20' _01 O 3 TRACT 'A' Ko \� - SEMILLA COURT - ¢ "N'.."�' PARK AREA Sg - 0 229688 S.F. 589°36'42"E 351.48' m '� 5.27 ACRES a 58.75' 58.75' 58.75' A LOT 9 LOT 8 LOT 7 LOT 10 LOT 6\vO 11C LOT 5 LOT 4 LOT 3 20' P.U.D. �w EASEMENT LOT 2 A.F.#518740 m 880 SSU16'09W 92 S 0. \ 0.22 Ac 119 Al"W 15 3Q N6p is ST V �C'w LOT 13 LOT 1 gD' pC 9712 S9Ft �Y`L 0.22 Ac o LOT 14 m, 119'c',,SA f, tj6y'LN OP v\ LOT 12 LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 18 LOT 19 NOTES. LOT 11 P�P� QP PO P P 1. BASIS OF BEARING IS THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 30 EAST, W.M.,AS SHOWN ON RECORD SURVEY, RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 498, RECORDS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY WASHINGTON 2. O = SET 5/8"X. 24" REBAR WITH YELLOW CAP STAMPED "RSI -JAB 21384". SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION 3. ® = ON PROPERTY LINE 3.00' FROM CORNER 11. LOTS 10-12 & 25-42 CONTAIN AN ESTATE TYPE FENCE/WALL ALONG THE = 8X 24" REBAR WITH YELLOW CAP STAMPED "RSI -JAB 21384" OR AS NOTED. REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR JOHN A. BAALMAN, A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN 4. • FOUND 5"THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, (REG. 21384) HEREBY CERTIFY / MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OF SAID FENCE/WALL. THAT THIS PLAT CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY 5. 0 =SET 3" B.C. IN MON. CASE, STAMPED RSI -LS. #21384 OR AS NOTED. CONDUCTED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION IN MARCH 6. EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES USED: TRIMBLE R8 GPS RECEIVERS UTILIZING REALTIME KINEMATIC PROCEDURES AND 12. THIS PLAT IS ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED C-3 GENERAL BUSINESS AND 2016, THAT THE DISTANCES, COURSES AND ANGLES ARE \\11 AS SUCH LOTS IN THIS PLAT WILL SHOWN TRUE AND CORRECT THEREON, AND THAT THE j TOPCON GTS 225 TOTAL STATION (5 SECOND 2mm+2ppm) CLOSED TRAVERSE AND RADIAL SURVEY METHODS UTILIZED. MONUMENTS HAVE BEEN SET AND LOT CORNERS STAKED PERIODICALLY EXPERIENCE IMPACTS OF NOISE AND DUST ASSOCIATED WITH ON THE GROUND AS SHOWN ON THE MAP. 3J 34 7. ADDRESSES WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY OF PASCO WHEN BUILDING PERMITS ARE ISSUED. THE OPERATION OF PERMITTED USES SUCH AS A POTATO/ONION SHED, END. U.S. B.R. HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND SIMILAR USES. BRASS II CAP 8. FRANKLIN COUNTY P.U.D. NOTE: IN MOIJ. CASE THE INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY MAKING IMPROVEMENTS ON A LOT OR LOTS OF THIS PLAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND INSTALLING ALL TRENCH, CONDUIT, PRIMARY VAULTS, SECONDARY JUNCTION BOXES, AND BACKFILL FOR THE ROD'S PRIMARY AND SECONDARY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM�?wBH LA IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUD SPECIFICATIONS; SAID INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY WILL MAKE FULL ADVANCE PAYMENT OF LINE EXTENSION FEES AND WILL OF '7 PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY UTILITY EASEMENTS PRIOR TO PUD CONSTRUCTION AND/OR CONNECTION OF ANY ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO OR WITHIN THE y�lY'Pw C'TO� DATE PLAT. 7 9. TRACT 'A' IS DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF PASCO AS A PUBLIC PARK. 10. THE PROPERTY OWNER OF LOT 3 SHALL CONSTRUCT AN ACCESS GATE FOR THE EXISTING FRANKLIN ', 4 PUD EASEMENT IN ANY FENCE THAT CROSSES THE EASEMENT. THE GATE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OPENING OF TWELVE FEET (12') CONSISTING OF 21384 (TWO) SIX FOOT PANELS AND BE LOCATED ON THE NORTH 12' OF THE 20' WIDE EASEMENT. GATE POSTS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FOUR INCHES / 4'4Y.TS7ERY'O (4") IN DIAMETER. THE FRANKLIN PUD WILL PROVIDE AND INSTALL A PADLOCK THAT CAN ONLY BE OPENED BY DISTRICT PERSONNEL. NO OTHER SAL LAPID LOCKS WILL BE PERMITTED ON THE GATE. THE GATES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WHEN ANY FENCING THAT COULD BLOCK ACCESS TO THE FRANKLIN PUD EASEMENT IS INSTALLED. THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL AT NO TIME PLACE ANY PERMANENT STRUCTURES (INCLUDING TREES) IN THE FRANKLIN PUD EASEMENT. THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL MAINTAIN THROUGH ACCESS IN THE EASEMENT AT ALL TIMES. LOT 1 / LOT 11 ):: OT 12 DELTA LOT 13 CHORD LOT 14 18:12 180.00 \\OP V N76'51'09"W ^\� LOT 15 d\" NO 180.00 9'52'33" PPG 10 1� LOT 1s 20.00 LOT 17 565'31'01"E LOT 18 C12 LOT 19 55.00 LOT 20 14432'26"W LOT 10 52.92 o LOT 8 '- LOT 7 f LOT 6 -LOT 5 - 12558 SqF7784 39.12 SgFt 37619 Sq Ft 37618 SqFt 37617 SgFt 30.29 C16 Ac 55.00 g 0.18 Ac 0.17 Ac o 0.17 Ac o 0.17 Ac oOT S68'37'32"E 39.12 99 /1241 46.41 55,00 48'20'32" N6E22'11"E 45.04 C19 16.82 20.00 48'11'23" SPIEL20 16.33 C20 31.30 20.00 89'40'21" N44'46'32'W 28.20 C21 1 31.53 Ac 1 90619'39" N45 -13'28"E 28.36. C22 16.82 20.00 48'11'23" S65'31'01"E 16.33 C23 33.14 55.00 34'31320" N58'40'59"W 32.64 L59 10' UTIL17 55.00 41'40'11" S83'13'16"W 39.12 C25 40.00 55.00 41°40'11" S41'33705"W ASEMENT 32.14' 40.00 55.00 83.75' 58.75' 39.12 '55.02' 58.7IN119'37'44"W U2 68.4_' 41'40'11" S41'47'17"E S89'37'44 E 371.26' C28 40.00 55.00 41'40'11" OD N89'37'4 - - - - - - - - - 31.71 C30 31.30 20.00 L 5/8" REBAR 28.20 C31 85.47 500.00 9'47'39" S4'50'10"E 85.37 - EY' 500.00 8'24'13" S13'56'06"E 73.27 C33 73.34 500.00 8'24'13" 522'20'19"E 73.27 C34 195.57 440.00 25'28'02" S12'40'22"E 193.97 C35 31.53 LOT 90619'39" 545'13'28"W 28.36. C36 20.68 120.00 9°5233" N84'40'26"W 12420 �ql`t 20.29 C37 16.82 20.00 4611'23" 566'17'37"W 16.33 C38 25.85 150.00 0.29 Aa A LOT 9 LOT 8 LOT 7 LOT 10 LOT 6\vO 11C LOT 5 LOT 4 LOT 3 20' P.U.D. �w EASEMENT LOT 2 A.F.#518740 m 880 SSU16'09W 92 S 0. \ 0.22 Ac 119 Al"W 15 3Q N6p is ST V �C'w LOT 13 LOT 1 gD' pC 9712 S9Ft �Y`L 0.22 Ac o LOT 14 m, 119'c',,SA f, tj6y'LN OP v\ LOT 12 LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 18 LOT 19 NOTES. LOT 11 P�P� QP PO P P 1. BASIS OF BEARING IS THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 30 EAST, W.M.,AS SHOWN ON RECORD SURVEY, RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 498, RECORDS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY WASHINGTON 2. O = SET 5/8"X. 24" REBAR WITH YELLOW CAP STAMPED "RSI -JAB 21384". SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION 3. ® = ON PROPERTY LINE 3.00' FROM CORNER 11. LOTS 10-12 & 25-42 CONTAIN AN ESTATE TYPE FENCE/WALL ALONG THE = 8X 24" REBAR WITH YELLOW CAP STAMPED "RSI -JAB 21384" OR AS NOTED. REAR PROPERTY LINE. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR JOHN A. BAALMAN, A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN 4. • FOUND 5"THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, (REG. 21384) HEREBY CERTIFY / MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OF SAID FENCE/WALL. THAT THIS PLAT CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY 5. 0 =SET 3" B.C. IN MON. CASE, STAMPED RSI -LS. #21384 OR AS NOTED. CONDUCTED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION IN MARCH 6. EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES USED: TRIMBLE R8 GPS RECEIVERS UTILIZING REALTIME KINEMATIC PROCEDURES AND 12. THIS PLAT IS ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ZONED C-3 GENERAL BUSINESS AND 2016, THAT THE DISTANCES, COURSES AND ANGLES ARE \\11 AS SUCH LOTS IN THIS PLAT WILL SHOWN TRUE AND CORRECT THEREON, AND THAT THE j TOPCON GTS 225 TOTAL STATION (5 SECOND 2mm+2ppm) CLOSED TRAVERSE AND RADIAL SURVEY METHODS UTILIZED. MONUMENTS HAVE BEEN SET AND LOT CORNERS STAKED PERIODICALLY EXPERIENCE IMPACTS OF NOISE AND DUST ASSOCIATED WITH ON THE GROUND AS SHOWN ON THE MAP. 3J 34 7. ADDRESSES WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY OF PASCO WHEN BUILDING PERMITS ARE ISSUED. THE OPERATION OF PERMITTED USES SUCH AS A POTATO/ONION SHED, END. U.S. B.R. HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND SIMILAR USES. BRASS II CAP 8. FRANKLIN COUNTY P.U.D. NOTE: IN MOIJ. CASE THE INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY MAKING IMPROVEMENTS ON A LOT OR LOTS OF THIS PLAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND INSTALLING ALL TRENCH, CONDUIT, PRIMARY VAULTS, SECONDARY JUNCTION BOXES, AND BACKFILL FOR THE ROD'S PRIMARY AND SECONDARY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM�?wBH LA IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUD SPECIFICATIONS; SAID INDIVIDUAL OR COMPANY WILL MAKE FULL ADVANCE PAYMENT OF LINE EXTENSION FEES AND WILL OF '7 PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY UTILITY EASEMENTS PRIOR TO PUD CONSTRUCTION AND/OR CONNECTION OF ANY ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO OR WITHIN THE y�lY'Pw C'TO� DATE PLAT. 7 9. TRACT 'A' IS DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF PASCO AS A PUBLIC PARK. 10. THE PROPERTY OWNER OF LOT 3 SHALL CONSTRUCT AN ACCESS GATE FOR THE EXISTING FRANKLIN ', 4 PUD EASEMENT IN ANY FENCE THAT CROSSES THE EASEMENT. THE GATE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OPENING OF TWELVE FEET (12') CONSISTING OF 21384 (TWO) SIX FOOT PANELS AND BE LOCATED ON THE NORTH 12' OF THE 20' WIDE EASEMENT. GATE POSTS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FOUR INCHES / 4'4Y.TS7ERY'O (4") IN DIAMETER. THE FRANKLIN PUD WILL PROVIDE AND INSTALL A PADLOCK THAT CAN ONLY BE OPENED BY DISTRICT PERSONNEL. NO OTHER SAL LAPID LOCKS WILL BE PERMITTED ON THE GATE. THE GATES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WHEN ANY FENCING THAT COULD BLOCK ACCESS TO THE FRANKLIN PUD EASEMENT IS INSTALLED. THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL AT NO TIME PLACE ANY PERMANENT STRUCTURES (INCLUDING TREES) IN THE FRANKLIN PUD EASEMENT. THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL MAINTAIN THROUGH ACCESS IN THE EASEMENT AT ALL TIMES. LOT 1 / LOT 11 ):: OT 12 DELTA LOT 13 CHORD LOT 14 18:12 180.00 \\OP V N76'51'09"W ^\� LOT 15 d\" NO 180.00 9'52'33" PPG 30.99 C11 LOT 1s 20.00 LOT 17 565'31'01"E LOT 18 C12 LOT 19 55.00 LOT 20 LOT 3 TOTAL AREA: 781943 SQ Fi 17.95 ACRES APPROVALS CITY OF PASCO EXAMINED AND APPROVED THISDAY QF CHAIRMAN, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY ENGINEER MAYOR, CITY OF PASCO CITY CLERK DATE DATE DATE LEGAL DESCRIPTION REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 30 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CIN OF PASCO, FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE NORTH 0°03'23" EAST, 1341.03 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 0°03'23" EAST, 641.04 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89°36'37" EAST, 1075.12 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTH 660 FEET OF THE SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 9 OF THE PLAT OF TIERRA VIDA NO, TWO, PHASE ONE ACCORDING TO THE PLATTHEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUMED OF PLATS, PAGE 495, RECORDS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 4°26'26" WEST, 142.26 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PLATTO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE (THE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 16°01'51" WEST, 180.00 FEET); THENCE WESTERLY, 18.12 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE AND ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5°46'001; THENCE LEAVING SAID CURVE ON A NON -TANGENT BEARING OF SOUTH 10°15'51" WEST, 60.00 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE; THENCE SOUTH 0°2318" WEST, 108.22 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE; THENCE NORTH 89°36'42" WEST, 10.64 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE; THENCE SOUTH 0°04'46" WEST, 485.23 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 19 OF THE PLAT OF TIERRA VIDA -PHASE ONE ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUMED OF PLATS PAGE 317 RECORDS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 89-37130" WEST, 329.64 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PLAT; THENCE SOUTH 64°35'37" WEST. 107.91 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE SOUTH 55'12'43" WEST, 60.71 FEETALONG SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE SOUTH 63°27'34" WEST, 119.91 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE NORTH 21°51'11" WEST, 90.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 13°43'38" WEST, 90.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 6°46'34" WEST, 114.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°37'44" WEST, 371.26 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 17.95 ACRES. = 60 Curve Toble CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CH. BRING. CHORD C9 18:12 180.00 5'46'00" N76'51'09"W 18.11 CIO 31.03 180.00 9'52'33" N84'40'26"W 30.99 C11 16.82 20.00 48'11'23" 565'31'01"E 16.33 C12 5.99 55.00 6'14'13" 14432'26"W 5.98 C13 52.92 55.00 55'07'53" N75'13'28"W 50.90 C14 40.00 55.00 41'40'02" S5F22'34"W 39.12 C15 40.00 55.00 41'40'02" S14'42'32"W 39.12' C16 40.00 55.00 41040'02" S26'5730"E 39.12 C17 40.00 55.00. 41'40'02" S68'37'32"E 39.12 C18 46.41 55,00 48'20'32" N6E22'11"E 45.04 C19 16.82 20.00 48'11'23" 566'17'37"W 16.33 C20 31.30 20.00 89'40'21" N44'46'32'W 28.20 C21 1 31.53 20.00 1 90619'39" N45 -13'28"E 28.36. C22 16.82 20.00 48'11'23" S65'31'01"E 16.33 C23 33.14 55.00 34'31320" N58'40'59"W 32.64 C24 40.00 55.00 41'40'11" S83'13'16"W 39.12 C25 40.00 55.00 41°40'11" S41'33705"W 39.12 C26 40.00 55.00 41'40'11" SO'07'06"E 39.12 C27 40.00 55.00 41'40'11" S41'47'17"E 39.12 C28 40.00 55.00 41'40'11" S83'27'28"E 39.12 C29 32.17 55,00 3330'31" N58'57'1 I"E 31.71 C30 31.30 20.00 89'40'21" N44'46'32"W 28.20 C31 85.47 500.00 9'47'39" S4'50'10"E 85.37 C32 73.34 500.00 8'24'13" S13'56'06"E 73.27 C33 73.34 500.00 8'24'13" 522'20'19"E 73.27 C34 195.57 440.00 25'28'02" S12'40'22"E 193.97 C35 31.53 20.00. 90619'39" 545'13'28"W 28.36. C36 20.68 120.00 9°5233" N84'40'26"W 20.66 C37 16.82 20.00 4611'23" 566'17'37"W 16.33 C38 25.85 150.00 9452'33" N84'40'26"W 25.82 C39 213.86 470.00 26'04'15" S12'58'29"E 212.02 20_. LINE TABLE LINE DIRECTION LENGTH L51 589'36'42"E 11.09 L52 589'36'42"E 12.43 L53 S8936'42"E 2.42 L54 S89036'42"E 6.42 L55 S89'36'42"E 8.42 L56 589'36'42"E 13.42 L57 589'36'42"E 20,84 L58 S89036'42"E 21.78 L59 N8937'44"W 3.73 L60 SO'03'39"W 8.04 L61 589'36'42"E 10.64 L62 S10*15'51"W 60.00 L63 S89'36'42"E 67.58 L64 589'36'42"E 56.33 L65 589'36'42"E 4.42 L66 S89'36'42"E 54.33 L67 S8936'42"E 52.33 DEDICATION I, ROGER SAIRSTOW, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF CASA, L.L.C., HEREBY CERTIFY THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF THE TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED HEREON AND THAT WE HAVE CAUSED SAID LAND TO BE SURVEYED AND PLATTED INTO LOTS AS SHOWN HEREON AND THE STREET RIGHTS OF WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE HEREBY DEDICATED TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC AND THAT SAID SUBDIVISION SHALL HEREAFTER BE DESIGNATED BY THE NAME OF "TIERRA VIDA, N0. 2 - PHASE TWO." ROGER BAIRSTOW, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF CASA, L.L.C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF COUNTY OF S.S. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON THIS DAY OF , 20-A.D., PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, ROGER BAIRSTOW, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF CASA, L.L.C., TO ME KNOWN TO BE THE INDIVIDUAL IN AND WHO SIGNED THE FOREGOING 'DEDICATION', AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE SIGNED THE SAME AS HIS FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE OWNERS- IN WITNESS THEREOF, I HAVE SET MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THE DAY AND YEAR FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN. NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF RESIDING AT MY COMMISSION EXPIRES COUNTY TREASURER HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE LAND DESCRIBED HEREON HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL TO AND INCLUDING THE YEAR 20-A.D. FRANKLIN COUNTY TREASURER COUNTY ASSESSOR EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF 20 A.D. FRANKLIN COUNTY ASSESSOR A UDITOR ;S CERTIFICATE FILED THIS DAY OF , 20 , AT THE REQUEST OF CASA, LLC, AT PASCO, WASHINGTON AND RECORDED IN VOLUME OF PLATS AT PAGE , RECORDS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY. FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR BY DEPUTY FRANKLIN COUNTY P. UR EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS_ DAY OF 20_ FRANKLIN COUNTY P.U.D. TITLE L68 589036'42"E 55.33 DATE R0CERS SURVEYING INC., P. S. 60 39 0 60 120 Viii 1455 COLUMBIA PARK TRA/L R/CHLAND, WA. 99352 PHONE (509) 783-4141 SCALE IN FEET FAX: (509) 783-8994 www.rogersaurveying.cam 33415.DWG DRN BY: RDP 3/14/16 1 OF 1 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 15, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director FROM: Dan Ford, City Engineer Public Works SUBJECT: Final Acceptance: 2014-2015 ADA Retrofit I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Map Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. accepting the work performed by C&E Trenching, LLC, under contract for the 2014-2015 ADA Retrofit project. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Community Development Block Grant - $142,072.00 Overlay Fund - $119,731.11 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On August 3, 2015, Council awarded the 2014-2015 ADA Retrofit project to C&E Trenching, LLC for $296,382.03. V. DISCUSSION: As part of implementation of the City's adopted ADA Transition Plan, this project included replacement of non -conforming ADA access ramps, asphalt repair in crosswalks, re -striping, adjusting signage and other associated work. The project scope included the following areas: Area 1: The non -signalized intersections along Sylvester Street Corridor from 3rd Page 22 of 336 Avenue to 28th Avenue; a total of 15 intersections. The ADA Retrofit requirements were triggered by micro -surfacing work in the corridor, which took place in the summer of 2015. Area 2: The intersection of Argent Road & 65th Place. The ADA modifications were triggered by overlay work along the Argent Way corridor. Area 3: The intersections of Monrovia Lane & Segovia Drive, and Granada Lane & Artesia Drive. The ADA modification and compliance was triggered by public request/complaint. Project locations are shown in the attached Vicinity Map. The final project construction contract is $261,803.11, a cost savings of $34,578.92. The savings are a result of an optimized technique the contractor used in the demolition of existing curb ramps. The technique used allowed for the adjacent pavement to remain undamaged, considerably reducing the amount of pavement demolition, patching, and installation of crushed base material. Savings also resulted from the field fitted ramp design which allowed the contractor to minimize the removal and installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk. The work is now complete and meets project specifications. Staff recommends City Council's acceptance of this work. Page 23 of 336 ,014 2-015 ADA RETROFIT PRC-)JECT PROJECT No. GRI -ST -33-15-75 AREA 3 a 0 BURDE BLVD r I ' l--tL\ \ \� IL J LL B GENT RD AREA 2 o�RNE71T RD r JAM E � o � o COU TSTI q z 4TH i - � A ST VICINITY MAP NTS 0 CA) w RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED BY C&E TRENCHING, LLC, UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE 2014-2015 ADA RETROFIT PROJECT. WHEREAS, the work performed by C&E Trenching, LLC, under contract for the 2014- 2015 ADA Retrofit project has been examined by Engineering and has been found to be in apparent compliance with the applicable project specifications and drawings, and WHEREAS, it is Engineering's recommendation that the City of Pasco formally accept the contractor's work and the project as complete; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, that the City Council concurs with Engineering's recommendation and thereby accepts the work performed by C&E Trenching, LLC, under contract for the 2014-2015 ADA Retrofit project, as being completed in apparent conformance with the project specifications and drawings, and Be It Further Resolved, that the City Clerk is hereby directed to notify the Washington State Department of Revenue of this acceptance, and Be It Further Resolved, that the final payment of retainage being withheld pursuant to applicable laws, regulations and administrative determination shall be released upon satisfaction of same and verification thereof by the Public Works Director and Finance Manager. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 4th day of April, 2016. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr City Attorney Page 25 of 336 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 25, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Street Vacation: A Portion of East Salt Lake Street (MF# VAC 2016-006) I. REFERENCE(S): Overview Map Vicinity Map Proposed Resolution Vacation Petition II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , a resolution setting 7:00 P.M., Monday, May 2, 2016, as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of East Salt Lake Street. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Several owners of property with the Frey's Addition have petitioned for the vacation of the north 10 feet of East Salt Lake Street between Utah Avenue and California Avenue. The petition requires the City Council to fix a public hearing to consider the vacation request. The earliest regular Council meeting for a public hearing, which provides the statutory 20 -day hearing notice, is May 2, 2016. V. DISCUSSION: Two of the petitioners are in the process of building new commercial buildings at 1601 Page 26 of 336 and 1705 East Salt Lake Street. The Oregon Avenue Circulation Plan adopted by Ordinance 3255 indicates East Salt Lake Street is a" keeper street" however, the excess right-of-way for "keeper streets" can be reduced from 80 feet to 60 feet. The south side of East Salt Lake Street between Utah Avenue and California Avenue was previously vacated. Page 27 of 336 Overview Item: Portion of Salt Lake Street Applicant: Arturo Nunez, et al. Map File #. VAC 2016-006 N JAMES ST .. '1 .- r'a'�� � - C . f �• I li I. .i. �x moi? �� 1 W 1 iE M SHERR RD—ST 21 Lj CD HI_1TR FT GHLAND r _ , , ® 2si E GAP - 9 -PARK VIEW Tj LU �� < ® ♦ a ��� Z ='� Q 0 B�R®4DWAY_ O� P -✓` "` � . ��; ,. ,✓ ! ' ��O POS P � ,, , �, ` �' I � f a Y. S ' �� a ra• —. �. y�> � ,, Vicinity Item: Portion of Salt Lake Street Applicant Arturo Nunez, et al. Map File #: VAC 2016-006 k� � Em Ewa 111 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION SETTING 7:00 PM, MONDAY, MAY 2, 2016 AS THE TIME AND DATE TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VACATING A PORTION OF EAST SALT LAKE STREET. WHEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the general interest of the City, the City Council may vacate public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, R.C.W. 35.79 requires public hearings on vacations to be fixed by Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That a public hearing to consider vacating north 10 feet of East Salt Lake Street between the west line of Utah Avenue to the east line of California Avenue, will be held before the City Council of the City of Pasco in the Council Chambers at 525 N. Third Avenue, Pasco, Washington, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on May 2, 2016. That the City Clerk of the City of Pasco give notice of said public hearing as required by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 4th day of April, 2016. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr City Attorney Page 30 of 336 Exhibit Item' Portion of Salt Lake Street Applicant Arturo Nunez, et al. #1 File #: VAC 2016-006 x SITE CITY OF PASCO STREET/ALLEY VACATION PETITION MASTER FILE # FEE $200 ` 00 6 DATE SUBMITTED: a �i3 I, we the undersigned, owners of two-thirds of the privately owned abutting property hereby petition the City Council of the City of Pasco to vacate the following described street/alley rights-of-way: - I�-rW Lr E h j V-rA " _J 1 �= APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNED (Legal Description) Print Name: a4uro (166C2._ r�tG Sign Name: Acm4 3 c� Address: 2, 06� Phone2 -o5 -4 Date_ 8- t Print Nam( (ay_' t�'> Sign Name rm Print Name: I'1rj�x,rlL Sign Name: Date Print Name: Sign Name: Date Print Name: Sign Name: Date -111 �'K 't,Aj0-,f 13-15-G20A2 Page 32 of 336 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 29, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Rezone Appeal: R-1 to R-3 Rezone Under MF # 2015-006 (MF# APPL 2016- 001) I. REFERENCE(S): Rezone Application Proposed Rezone Ordinance Karlberg Appeal Staff Memo Addressing the Appeal Applicant's Argument on the Record Report to Planning Commission Multi -Family Housing Studies SEPA Checklist SEPA DNS Exhibits Provided at the Planning Commission Hearing Correspondence Transcript of Planning Commission Hearing 1/21/16 Transcript of Planning Commission Deliberations 2/18/16 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, rezoning a parcel of land in the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M., from R-1 (Low - Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) with a concomitant agreement, and further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Page 33 of 336 On January 21, 2016 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a rezone application for a five acre parcel of land north of the FCID canal and directly west and south of the Chapel Hill development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezone from R-1 to R-3 with a concomitant agreement. Following the Planning Commission recommendation a written appeal was filed. The attached appeal explains the reasoning behind the appeal. Following the appeal the City Council set April 4, 2016 as the date to conduct a Closed Record Hearing to consider the appeal. V. DISCUSSION: Consideration of an appeal occurs in the form of a "Closed Record Hearing" consisting of a review of the written record of the rezone application including the Planning Commission's deliberation. When considering this appeal, the City Council has the option of accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation, denying the application, approving the application with additional conditions or remanding the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review on a specific issue. In acting on the rezone application as per the criteria of PMC 25. 88.060 Council should determine whether or not: 1. Is the proposal in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 2. Will the effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity be materially detrimental; 3. Is there merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole; 4. Should conditions be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impact from the proposal; 5. Is a concomitant agreement required and if so what should be the terms and conditions? Any option the Council chooses to select for the Rezone application will need to be supported by Findings of Fact. The Findings identified in the staff report to the Planning Commission can be used as Findings to support approval of the Rezone as recommended by the Planning Commission. Said Findings are adopted by reference in the recommended ordinance. For any other action the Council will need to develop a separate list of findings. Staff recommends the Council accept the Planning Commission recommendation to rezone the property in question. Page 34 of 336 Page 35 of 336 blot OAKI FEE: $700.00 CITY OF PASCO PETITION FOR. CHANGE OF LAND USE CLASSIFICATION MASTER FILE # DATE SUBMITTED: t -L.9. iS PLEASE COMPLETE APPLICATION NEATLY Scott Lybbert (Name of Applicant) 2839 W Kennewick Avenue, PMB 396 ennewic (Address) 509-820-3282 (Phone) Steve and Crystal Aldrich (Name of Owner, (if other than Applicant)) 6720 Aintree Drive Pasco WA 99301 (Address) Sag - 5457- ia-za (Phone) General Location of Property: On Aintree Drive about 650 feet south of Chapel Hill Blvd (Give location in relation to streets, intersections, etc.) Legal Description: PTN SW4SW4 15-9-29 LY NLY OF FCID CANAL & SWLY OF A LN DAF: (Attach to Application if too Lengthy) BEG AT W QTR COR SD SEC; TH S01 D27'W ALG W LN THEREOF, 1472.65' TO TPOB; TH S721.02' OF N 1472.65' OF SW4 SD SEC TOG W/TRACT B CHAPEL HILL PHASE 1 Square Feet/Access of Property: 5.05 acres f Access = Aintree Drive Current Classification: R-1 Residential Low Density Requested Classification: R-3 Medium Density Residential 1. Briefly describe the nature and effect of the proposed change: The proposed change would bring the property zoning into conformance with the comprehensive plan to 5,000 sq-ft/lot for single family or 3,000 sq-ft/lot for multifamily 2. Estimated timeframe of development: 2016-2017 3. Date existing classification became effective unknown Page 36 of 336 FEE: $700.00 4. What changed or changing condition warrant the proposed change? Site slopes and construction costs associated with single family are such that it can't develop as single farnily, howevei the applicant pe, fem. to develop this propeity as inulti-family due to constructability and cost challenges. 5. 0 7 How will the proposed change advance the health, safety and general welfare if the community? The proposed change would allow for more diversity of housing options, reduce urban sprawl by allowing more units in the heart of an existing development area, allow housing to develop 0.65 miles from the Road 68 commercial area, less infrastructure per unit for the City to maintain. This reduces travel distances and emissions for an equivalent number of housing units that would be further away. What effect will the proposed change have on the value and character of adjacent ro ert ? No change in value is expected: Existing high density residential apartments are 185 feet away from this property. The proposal will allow the property to be cleaned up (i.e. no large animals on parcel) and create a residential feel for the adjacent properties vs. the existing rural setting. How does the proposed change relate to City's Comprehensive an. The proposed change would bring the property zoning into conformance with the mixed -residential. Other circumstances: 9. What effc granted? 10. List any i ct will be realized by the owner(s) if the proposed change is not The existing home owner will continue to pay higher property taxes for their large lot because the property will not subdivide to small lots. naps, drawings or other exhibits attached to this application: Preliminary layout depicting one possible medium densitv residential layout consisting of 4-plex units with attached garages as the bottom floor. AFFIDAVIT I, S-�C'y� "C-v5W tcQn�ck , being duly sworn, declare that I am the legal owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements are answers herein contained and the application herewith submitted are in all respects the ti-, d correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. L (Signature of Own r) Subscribed and sworn before me this day of (��Ce+m��-+/ , 206. 0`'yk11111f1ff/1fI � , yam; •' °'�1o1i� .,, / Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at' VA US_Sa A cic3bl 4?' NOTARY PUBLIC i +ff./l11111j115 Page 37 of 336 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, REZONING A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 29 EAST W.M., FROM R-1 (LOW- DENSITY DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) WITH A CONCOMMITANT AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has been received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission upon such petition; and, WHEREAS, during the open record hearing process the Planning Commission adopted findings supporting a change of zoning and that said findings contained within the Planning Commission staff report under Master File # 2015-006 are hereby adopted by the Pasco City Council; and, WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and, WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner, that: (A) the requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; (B) the requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or promotes the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest in the community; and (C) there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs or circumstances warranting the requested change of the zoning classification; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from R - 1 (Low -Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) for the real property as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached hereto and described as follows: That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., Franklin County, Washington, Lying Northerly of the Franklin County Irrigation District Canal and lying Southwesterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at the West quarter of Section 15; Thence South 01027'06" West along the West line thereof, 1472.65 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence South 88°32'54" East 277.16 feet; Thence South 31°12'36" East 222.54 feet; Thence South 40°53'34" East 229.96 feet; Thence South 01°27'06" West 360.02 feet to the North right-of-way line of said canal and the terminus of said line. Except for the following described property; Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 39, Chapel Hill Division Two; Thence Westerly along the South line of Aintree Drive for a Page 38 of 336 distance of 162 feet; Thence South 00°26 '40" West for a distance of 110 feet; Thence South 89°33 '57" East to the intersection with the West line of said Lot 39; Thence Northwesterly along the West line of said Lot 39 to the point of beginning. Section 2. That the change of the zoning classification as provided in Section 1 is contingent, and conditioned upon the execution and compliance with a Concomitant Agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the City which will attach to and run with the real property described in Section 1 above. Said Concomitant Agreement is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit No "2". Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 4t" day of April, 2016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 39 of 336 "Exhibit # 2" CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a non -charter code city, under the laws of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 R.C.W. and Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution) has authority to enact laws and enter into agreements to promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and development of property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Owner(s) of certain property have applied for a rezone of such property described below within the City's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the City pursuant to R.C.W. 43.12(c), the State Environmental Policy Act, should mitigate any adverse impacts which might result because of the proposed rezone; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the Owner(s) are both interested in compliance with the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use and development of property situated in the City of Pasco, described as follows: That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., Franklin County, Washington, Lying Northerly of the Franklin County Irrigation District Canal and lying Southwesterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at the West quarter of Section 15; Thence South 01°27'06" West along the West line thereof, 1472.65 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence South 88°32'54" East 277.16 feet; Thence South 31°12'36" East 222.54 feet; Thence South 40°53'34" East 229.96 feet; Thence South 01°27'06" West 360.02 feet to the North right-of-way line of said canal and the terminus of said line. Except for the following described property; Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 39, Chapel Hill Division Two; Thence Westerly along the South line of Aintree Drive for a distance of 162 feet; Thence South 00°26 '40" West for a distance of 110 feet; Thence South 8993 '57" East to the intersection with the West line of said Lot 39; Thence Northwesterly along the West line of said Lot 39 to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with the City of Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning Department to insure compliance with the Pasco Zoning Code, and all other local, state and federal laws relating to the use and development of the above described property; and WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions available by law, desires to enforce the rights and interests of the public by this concomitant agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, Page 40 of 336 In the event the above-described property is rezoned by the City of Pasco to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and in consideration of that event should it occur, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter stated, the applicant does hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. The Owner(s) promise to comply with all of the terms of the agreement in the event the City, as full consideration herein grants a rezone on the above-described property. 2. The Owner(s) agrees to perform the terms set forth in Section 4 of this agreement. 3. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees or successors in interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described. 4. Conditions: A. Only townhouse style attached homes with customary accessory structures are permitted to be built; For the purposes of this agreement "townhouse style" means a building containing only four or fewer dwelling units; B. Maximum building heights for the first tier of homes along the northerly and easterly boundary of the property shall be limited to the R-1 height standards of PMC 25.28.050 (5). No special permits shall be authorized for increases in building height over the allowable 25 feet; C. Building designs must incorporate architectural features to create visual interest. All building fronts must be articulated and painted with complementary colors to create a separated and distinctive look for each attached dwelling unit; D. Each building elevation must contain at least two distinctive architectural features; E. Vinyl and metal siding is prohibited. Siding of all buildings must include, singularly or collectively, cement fiber board siding, stucco, brick, architectural stone and architectural masonry block; F. All soffits shall be boxed; G. A 15 -foot landscaped buffer shall be installed along the easterly and northeasterly property line. Said buffer shall contain a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees spaced no more than 60 feet apart. The trees may be farther apart if they are planted in groupings of three trees per group. The site including all trees and landscaped areas must be regularly maintain in a workmanship like manner; H. In addition to the trees require in G. above the overall site must contain at least two trees for every dwelling unit. The site including all trees and landscaped areas must be regularly maintain in a workmanship like manner; CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENTPAGE 2 OF 3 Page 41 of 336 I. Convents, Conditions and Restrictions must be recorded against the property specifying among other things a Home Owners Association is responsible for all site and landscape maintenance, and; J. Exterior night lighting must be shielded to prevent light spillage. The person(s) whose names are subscribed herein do hereby certify that they are the sole holders of fee simple interest in the above-described property: Owner: Owner: STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. County of Franklin ) On this day of , 2016, before me, the undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared to me known to be the individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she/they is/are authorized to execute the said instrument. GIVEN under by hand and official seal this day of 92016. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENTPAGE 3 OF 3 Page 42 of 336 Exhibit Item' Rezone R- 1 to R-3 Applicant: Scott Lybbert #1 File #: Z 2015-006 1 VALLEY VIEW PL CHAPEL HILL BLVD i� p/M EL MAR &RZ*f%l4 0 FA WAA At City of Pasco Planning Commission 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 23 February 2016 While we appreciate the Concomitant Agreement which addressed some of our concerns, we, the neighbors of the property in question in the application Z 2015-006, appeal the recommendation of the Planning Commission to rezone the property in question from R-1 (Single Family) to R-3 (Multi -Family) for the following reasons: L In Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn 2d 454, 573 P.2d 359 (1978), the Washington State Supreme Court held that the proponents of the rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning, or as in this case, the 2013 re- zoning of the property to R-1, single family housing, and the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. We, the neighbors of the property in question, still contend the proponent of the rezone did not fulfill the burden of proof of a substantial change since the last re -zoning. While the city planning staff notes Hayden Homes "completed a utility and infrastructure study and determined the cost for the infrastructure rendered the single family zoning unfeasible," no such report was submitted to the commission as evidence. There was no information as to exactly why Hayden Homes claimed the costs were unfeasible. No information was submitted as to what the homeowner was asking for the property at the time. How much were the costs for the infrastructures? We also don't know what Hayden Home's policy of minimum return on investment. Did they abandon the plan because they would only make $40,000 vs $60,000 per home? Not being able to make a greater profit doesn't make developing the land as single- family homes unfeasible — it just doesn't make the corporate bottom line for returns and therefore, doesn't support a "substantial change" as required by the zoning code. Again, without documentation or information submitted from Hayden Homes at the Planning Commission Meeting, it should not be considered as facts supporting substantial change. Furthermore, in his testimony to the commission, Mr. Lybbert stated "he originally did a single family analysis - a year ago- and the cost estimate did not work." If such a cost estimate was conducted a year ago, why wasn't the cost estimate provided as evidence to support the substantial change? Since no evidence was submitted, we have no evidence Mr. Lybbert considered alternatives to drilling under the irrigation canal for the sewer lines, which is his claim that makes R-1 costs unfeasible. Did Mr. Lybbert consider building single-family homes at the current R-1 zoning with individual septic systems? Would this make the single-family Page 44 of 336 development financially feasible? Furthermore, Commissioner Bowers asked Mr. Lybbert during the meeting if he had considered R-2 and Mr. Lybbert replied "they hadn't." He claimed to "get the economics to work they would need the density of the R-3 zoning." Given Mr. Lybbert's statement they hadn't studied the feasibility of R-2, his claim of needing R-3 density remains unsupported. Mr_ McDonald, the Pasco City Planner, was also asked whether R-2 was feasible and his response was "he didn't believe so." Again, we contend that most of what was stated during the meeting as pertaining to the substantial change necessary for a re -zoning was unsupported by any documentary evidence. Simply stating it is not cost effective to build single family housing does not constitute evidence. Without the actual cost analysis between building single family (R -l), duplexes (R-2) and multi -family (R-3), the planning commission had no evidence on which to base their recommendation to support the proponent's claims that a "substantial change" had occurred to warrant the re -zoning to R-3. Furthermore, as we stated in the planning commission meeting, we contended the area directly surrounding the property in question has changed since the last re -zoning, to more R-1 single family to the North, East and to the West of property, making the nature of the neighborhood into a single family subdivision. We further contend, as stated in the planning commission hearing, the city has already designated other lands within the Chapel Hill development as R-3 that remain undeveloped at this time and if the city sees the need for more R-3, "to encourage housing for all segments of the population," this should be developed before changing R-1 single family zoned land to R-3. We argue changing the property in question which is surrounded by single family homes to the immediate North, East and West (the irrigation canal and the fire department are to the South) to R-3 is spot zoning done to benefit one landowner to the detriment of the other landowners bordering the property in question without adequate public advantage or justification. 2. We further content there is no public advantage. In fact, we argued in the hearing that the rezone would actually bear a substantial damage to the safety of the neighborhood in question because the re -zoning plan allowed the development access to Aintree Drive, the single road to the single family housing area from Road 68 and I-182. The Commission heard numerous neighbors testify to the hazards that already exist on Aintree Drive with traffic and parking along Aintree drive. The single family neighbors of the proposed multi -family development had asked that the development not be granted access to Aintree Drive because the traffic situation on Road 68 (see issues with Road 68 below) would likely lead the residents of the proposed multi -family housing development to use Aintree Drive as an alternative to using the proposed access off of Road 68. Our proposal to deny access to Aintree Drive to the proposed multi -family development conforms to the Comprehensive Plan policy H -1-B that encourages medium density housing to have access from major streets to "avoid access through lower density areas." 2 Page 45 of 336 Therefore, the Concomitant Agreement should have denied the proposed multi -family development access to Aintree Drive to avoid access through the single-family (low density) residential area. Furthermore, the development of multi -family housing would increase traffic on Road 68 by the sheer volume of at least twice possibly three times the amount of occupancy as a single family development. Mr. Lybbert's proposed development is planned for at least 40 units, as discussed in the Planning Commission hearing (1/21/2015). This is far more cars on Road 68 than the original zoned R-1 development, coupled with the approved plan for more R-3 development north on Road 68 (Columbia Villas, Phase 3 recommended for approval at the 2/18/2015 Planning Commission hearing), makes the rezoning worsen an already noted traffic problem on Road 68. Even the Pasco City Council has posted on their website that "the extent and nature of urban growth on the plateau, combined with the limitations imposed by the current configuration of the Road 68 interchange at I-182, have led to a pattern of intolerable congestion at the intersection of Road 68 and Burden Blvd." Furthermore, the traffic conditions along Road 68 has warranted the city of Pasco to implement access management and signal improvements on Road 68 to improve traffic flow and safety as recommended in the Road 68 Corridor Study as adopted by the City Council in September of 2012. Adding more multi -family developments along Road 68 will only make an "intolerable" situation worse. Furthermore, the studies cited by the City Planning staff, "Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental Housing, March 2007, regarding traffic patterns of multifamily vs single family housing developments, relies on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 7t' Edition (Washington, DC, 2003) which is 13 year old data. According to the ITE, the 9t" edition was released for calculating trip generations in 2012. This would have been the more applicable study but the City Planning Staff relied on a study that pulled from data that is 13 years old. Furthermore, there is no indication what methodology was used in the study or where the surveys were conducted? We contend there will be a major trip difference between metropolitan areas with robust transportation systems such as cities like Washington DC, Miami and Seattle than smaller sized cities like Pasco with a small bus transportation system. Furthermore, the staff should not have relied on a study which is titled, "Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental Housing," as the title alone suggests a bias in favor of multi -family housing areas, but should have instead shown evidence directly from a survey such as the ITE's 9'h Edition Trip Generation (2012), to support its findings of fact. Therefore, we contend the most current data was not used to support the city planning staff's findings, that this rezoning would advance the public health, safety and general welfare. 3 Page 46 of 336 We further contend the widening of Road 68 only at the entrance to the development to allow for two turn lanes will not alleviate the bottlenecking that will commence north on Road 68. The easterly turn lane (with a traffic signal) off of Road 68 onto Chapel Hill cannot handle the current volume of traffic on Road 68, which causes traffic to build up in the evenings and weekends north on Road 68 all the way to Burden Avenue. Adding turn lanes to the south of the intersection of Chapel Hill/Road 68 without widening the entire 68 corridor from the Road 68 overpass to Argent, will only cause a further traffic build up north on Road 68. 3. Finally, the staffing notes indicate "rezoning vacant land adjacent to existing subdivisions and evidence provided by tax records of Franklin County that the proposed rezone will not negatively impact adjoining properties. The staffing notes cite Columbia Villas and Navigator Villas as examples, however, during the open Planning Commission Hearing, it was asked if a comparison was done comparing the home values of the homes that border the R-3 developments to those that are deeper into the single family development (thus less likely to be impacted by the R-3 developments) to determine if the single family homes bordering the R-3 developments have increased in value at the same rate as those deeper into the single family development. The staff admitted that they hadn't compared the home prices. We contend, as was stated in the hearing, that as the homes bordering the proposed multi -family development paid more for their homes as they were deemed "view lots" that they will be more negatively impacted. For example, one model of Hayden Homes along Aintree Drive bordering the proposed site sold for $267,100 in 2014. Hayden Homes is currently building the exact same model off of Argent Blvd. on a similar sized lot. The home has upgraded materials (such as tiled showers and stone countertops in the bathrooms) that the Aintree property does not have but the home off of Argent is not located on what is considered a view lot. The home will be listed for sale at $239,000 in 2016. Even subtracting the cost of partial fencing that was included in the Aintree property, it would indicate at least a $25,000 difference. With Tri -Cities real estate increasing at a rate of over 7% last year, this would indicate a substantial negative impact on the property values of the homes bordering the proposed multi -family housing if they lose their views. While the mitigations in the Concomitant Agreement allow only for two-story dwellings bordering the R-1 single family development, the second tier buildings, which could be 3 story, and the density of the proposed R-3 multi -family housing will eliminate any views from the Single Family development, thus negatively impacting property values of the homes bordering the proposed development. For these reason we request the planning commission to reconsider your rezoning decision. Page 47 of 336 Name; Ka ly ki r l _ Name: I Address: �&n- /'L'e- 6.fWAddress• 'PI °^'k V1,C a J r Signature. _LSignature: Name: Kew, CL , 9e -b Name: Address: �Q _ Lt,, Paw Address: � � � �.r��C�L Zev Signature: Signature: Name: L&D" Name:. Address:. G /9 AAddress: G'9 "^�} Signature: Signature: Name•Name• ��C, 44e5 /111111E!3 Address: I'v (9 Signature: Name. � r - , - i I L Address:_ O S � ,Ct l'� �`(7f LLL /,.&I Address: ZIL21 a/, Signature: LSignature: c Name: � 4ame: /1^Ajly) VcF- lull- — Name: Address: 0 Address: P It 3r V kUem ��, tl- LJ // r` Signature: d l ij Ada Signature: ice_ �� Sig Name: Na `a Address: /"iNeIl d Qr, Address: �/ O f 1412212 k t- %2 4 Z j) a c u Signature: r.Signature: h .�n jo Page 48 of 336 Name: � L Name: Address:fr f- 9 `r � Address: y Signature: Signature° g Name: AAuNcl Name: Address: Address: ugrnata�re: nature: -------------- Name: _ Name: Address: Address: Sagna acre:_ Signature: Name: erne' Address: Address: Signature: Signature:_ Name: Name: Address: Address: Signature- Signature: Name: Marne: Address: Address: Signature Signature: Name; Rime: Address: Address: Signature, Signature.,_ Name: Page Name: Address: Address: Signature; ignature: Signature-.— Page 49 of 336 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 28, 2016 FOR: City Council TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Kalyn Karlberg Appeal of Rezone Recommendation Under MF# Z2015-006 (L by Bert) On February 24, 2016 Planning Staff received a written appeal of the Planning Commission recommendation for the Lybbert Rezone from R-1 to R- 3 for a parcel west and south of the Chapel Hill development. In her appeal letter Ms. Karlberg suggests Staff provided incorrect and incomplete data to the Planning Commission. The following is provided to address the questions and comments raised in the appeal. # 1. Changed conditions and lack of evidence The fact is Hayden Homes undertook considerable research and spent many thousands of dollars ($30,000) to determine whether or not it was feasible to develop a 15 -lot single-family subdivision on the Aldrich property. If Hayden Homes could have made any type of profit to recoup their feasibility expenditures there would be houses on the Aldrich site today. City Staff met numerous times with the Hayden Homes engineer to review proposals to develop the Aldrich property. City staff had intimate knowledge of the effort that went into the feasibility study for the proposed single-family development on the Aldrich property. After spending thousands of dollars Hayden Homes decided they could not make the proposed subdivision work financially. City Staff was fully aware of the time and expense involved in Hayden Homes feasibility efforts before they decided to drop the project. That knowledge was conveyed to the Planning Commission in the staff report for the rezone hearing where it was stated "the cost of infrastructure rendered the single-family zoning unfeasible". The sentence dealing with the Hayden Homes infrastructure study on page three of the Planning Commission staff report was only one item of many that were referenced as changing conditions in the neighborhood and community. The appellant takes exception to only one of many changing conditions listed in the staff report. Page 50 of 336 The property in question along with the Chapel Hill development is identified on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as an area for mixed use residential development. The determination for the zoning of this property was set years ago through the community process that resulted in the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The property can be zoned single-family or multi -family. The Chapel Hill subdivision was designed utilizing the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and was built as a mixed-use development with C-1, R-4 and R-3 zoning and now contains commercial buildings, apartments, four-plexes and single-family homes. The site is within 90 feet of a commercial strip center and 150 feet from one of the largest apartment complexes in the City. The Crossings at Chapel Hill was built before any of the single-family homes were built within the Chapel Hill development. The bordering single-family homes were built and purchased after the apartment complex was established without detriment to the homes. 2. Access issues and traffic The neighborhood in question has access from two directions. Pimlico Drive connects to Saratoga Lane to the east and Aintree Lane connects to Chapel Hill Boulevard to the north. When the applicant first approached Staff about developing the Aldrich property the applicant was encouraged to purchase the Thorne property to the west for access to Road 68 thereby lessening the need for traffic to use Aintree Lane and Drive. By combining the Thorne property with the Aldrich property the main access for the proposed developed would be from Road 68. However, even with access from Aintree Lane the rezone would be consistent with Policy H -I -B of the plan because Aintree Lane channels traffic north through a retail (Maverik Strip Center) and multi- family (Chapel Hill Apartments) neighborhood directly to a major street; Chapel Hill Boulevard. Much of the information in the appeal dealing with traffic congestion and the ITE Trip Generation Manual provided under Section 2 is new information that was not part of the hearing record. The information about the ITE Manual is also misleading and not accurate. Single-family development has the highest trip generation rate per unit of all types of residential structures. The Institute of Traffic Engineers has been conducting residential traffic studies for the past 40 years in communities all over the United States and Canada. The average daily rates for residential uses have remained constant over the years with about 9.5 trips per day for single-family and 6.6 trips per day for apartments. The 7th Addition of the ITE Manual states the average daily vehicle trips for single family is 9.57 while the 9th Edition of the Manual indicates the rate is now 9.52 vehicle trips per day. There was also a 2 Page 51 of 336 slight change for the apartment rate going from 6.67 to 6.66 vehicles per day. 3. Access issues and traffic Much of what is explained about cost comparisons under Section 3 is new information that was not part of the hearing record. The information is also inaccurate. None of the Hayden Homes being built on Caviler Court off Argent Road have sold for less than $319,000. The Caviler Court homes are selling for considerably more than the "view homes" on Pimlico Drive and Aintree Drive. The properties along the south side of Pimlico Drive and Aintree Drive are a little more expensive than other properties in the Chapel Hill neighborhood for a couple of reasons. The lots along the south side of Pimlico Drive are 3,500 square feet larger than most of the lots in The Chapel Hill subdivision. These lots also were offered for sale with a rear fence and were a little more expensive to develop because of the extra grading and fill required by Public Works to make the buildable portion of the lots sit two feet above the curb. 3 Page 52 of 336 Scott 1 Lybbert 2839 W Kennewick Ave. #396 Kennewick, WA 99336 Telephone (509) 820-3282 Fax (866) 746-4884 March 29, 2016 Pasco City Council 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Dear Council Members: The City Council is considering an appeal of the Pasco Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation of the application MF# Z 2015 -006 -Rezone from R-1 to R- 3. The issues raised by the neighbors in their letter dated February 23, 2016 are either not relevant to this application or inaccurate. As a result, they should not be considered. Rather than rebut each issue, I will simply make a few comments and leave the itemized discussion to the city staff. The rezone application does nothing more than bring the subject property into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. I believe this follows the wishes of the City Council and the intended outcome of the comprehensive planning process. Additionally, it is bordered by R-3 zoned property to the west. The city staff and Planning Commission gave serious consideration to this application and through the Concomitant Agreement, proposed reasonable terms to mitigate the concerns of the residents. As a 30+ year resident of the Tri -Cities, I want the development of this parcel to be a positive addition to the community. I hope you'll support the city staff and Planning Commission and the rigorous process they undertook in their review of this application. Th you, 0— 4;Scott Lybbert Page 53 of 336 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO. Z 2015-006 APPLICANT: Scott Lybbert HEARING DATE: 1/21/16 2839 W. Kennewick Ave. ACTION DATE: 2/18/16 PMB 396 Kennewick, WA 99336 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE Rezone from R-1 (Low- Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: That portion of the SW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 15, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM. lying northerly of the FCID canal except that portion platted as Chapel Hill Division 2 and that portion platted as Short Plat 2010-14. General Location: 6720 Aintree Drive Property Size: The parcel is approximately 5 acres. 2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Aintree Drive along the north property line. 3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site. Utilities will need to be extended into the site prior to development. (The topography of the site presents some practical difficulties in providing sewer service to the site. Sewer service will need to be extended under the FCID canal and connected to a manhole in Road 68.) 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R1 (Low- Density Residential) . The site contains a single-family residence with an accessory structure. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North R-1 & R-4 - SFDUs/Apartment Complex South C-1 - Fire Station/ Commercial Business East R-1 - SFDUs West County RS -20 - In the process of being annexed and zoned to R-3 1 Page 54 of 336 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Mixed Residential uses. Land Use Policy LU -3-13 encourages "infill" development. Other goals and policies suggest the City permit a full range of residential environments including town houses, condominiums and apartments (H -2-A). The Plan (County -Wide Policy # 1) also encourages development of affordable housing for all segments of the population a variety of densities. Policy H -1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. ANALYSIS The property in question was annexed to the City in 1982 and was a remnant parcel of the original farm circle that occupied the area between the FCID canal and I-182 east of Road 68. Because this 5 acre parcel was held under separate ownership from the farm circle it was not developed as a part of the Chapel Hill development. In 2003 the original farm circle was rezoned to R-1, R-3, R-4 and C-1 and developed as the Chapel Hill Subdivision. The site has remained minimally developed as the Chapel Hill subdivision has been built out. The property owner applied for a rezone in 2013 in an effort to develop the parcel with a 15 lot subdivision. Due to topographic variations of the parcel and the cost of running the sewer line under the FCID canal it was not feasible to move forward with the development. The fifteen lots could not carry the cost of all the infrastructure improvements needed to serve the five acre parcel. The City's land use plans for the past 36 years have indicated the property in question should be utilized for Mixed Residential uses. The "Description and Allocation of Land Uses" table in the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan indicates the Mixed Residential designation permits single-family through multi -family zoning with densities ranging from 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The applicable zoning classification for the mixed residential land use designation includes low-density through medium -density zoning including R-3 zoning. The applicant is seeking R-3 zoning which is permitted under the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is seeking a zone change from R-1 (Low -Residential) to R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) to match the multi -family zoning of the apartment complexes in the Chapel Hill subdivision to the north and east. R-3 zoning would permit one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet of land. The developer is planning on providing around 5,019 square feet of land for each dwelling unit or 8.7 units per acre. R-1 zone allows for up to one dwelling per 7,200 square feet or 6.05 units per acre. 2 Page 55 of 336 The proposed rezone will facilitate a residential infill development that is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan (LU -3-B). The R-3 zoning will permit the development of a medium -density development on a site that needs slightly more density than R-1 zoning to cover the cost of required infrastructure. This application is coupled with an annexation petition and rezone for the property to the west along Road 68. The developer intends to provide primary access off Road 68 consistent with Plan policy H -1-B that encourages medium density housing to have access from major streets to avoid access through lower density areas. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: Adjacent residential development and growth within the City makes the zone change appropriate, timely, and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Properties to the north and east have been zoned to R-1, R-3, R-4 and C-1 and developed with apartments, commercial development and single-family residences. Changed conditions in the community include: Completion of the Maverik Commercial Center to the northwest of the site; approval of six new preliminary plats with a total of 798 single-family lots; approval of 15 final plats with a total of 492 single-family lots; 188 acres of Department of natural Resources land west of Road 68 and south of I-182 was rezoned for single- family development which will provide for another 880 single-family lots; Franklin County approved five final plats (in the Urban Growth Boundary) with a total of 242 single-family lots; the Sharma Annexation brought another 28 acres of land into the City zoned for single-family development (96 lots); One thousand three hundred and thirty-four acres of unincorporated Franklin County were annexed to the City with most of the acreage zoned for low-density residential development (a small portion was zoned C-1) increasing the potential for single- family development in the annexation areas as a result of greater access to City utilities primarily through lower connection fees; In 2015 Franklin County denied the City's application to increase the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) there by causing urban growth to be restricted to the current UGB; and in 2013 Hayden Homes completed a utility and infrastructure study for the property and determined the cost for the necessary infrastructure rendered a single-family development on the property infeasible. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: The rezone will facilitate an infill development and improvements along Road 68. The rezone will also expand opportunities for additional housing options for 3 Page 56 of 336 Pasco residents consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan that encourage the provisions of housing for all segments of the population. 3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan: Based on past experience with rezoning vacant land adjacent to existing subdivisions, and evidence provided by tax records of Franklin County, the proposed rezone will not negatively impact adjoining properties. The development of Columbia Villas, and Navigator Villas are examples of where higher density development was placed adjacent to low-density with little impact to property. Franklin County Assessor records clearly show the single-family homes directly west of the Columbia Villas have increased in values since the construction of the townhouses in Columbia Villas. Increases in value have been up to almost 4 percent in one case. The value of the single-family homes to the west of Navigator Villas, a 178 unit four Alex development, have also increased since the four-plexes were built. The development of the Chapel Hill subdivision with two apartment complexes intermixed with single-family homes is another example of where higher density development co -exists with lower density development with no impact to property values. Rezoning the property will assist with the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted: If the request is not granted it is probable the property will continue to remain underdeveloped. Due to problems with topography and difficulties with serving the site with sewer service development of the site for single-family homes is highly unlikely. 5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential uses which includes R-2 and R-3 zoning. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Plan. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add Findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low -Density Residential) and has been zoned R-1 for approximately 3 years. 2. The site borders C-1 Zones to the north and south and is southwest of The Crossing at Chapel Hill (apartments) which is zoned R-4. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for mixed residential uses. Page 57 of 336 4. The Comprehensive Plan indicates densities for this site range from 5 to 20 units per acre. 5. The surrounding Chapel Hill subdivision was rezoned for multi -family, single-family and commercial development in 2003. 6. A fully developed street (Aintree Dr.) now borders the northern property line. 7. Aintree Drive and the other streets within the Chapel Hill subdivision contain all municipal utilities required to serve residential development however, the nearest available sewer to serve the site is located on Road 68 near the Fire Station. 8. The site contains a single-family residence and a small barn. 9. The site was annexed by the City of Pasco in 1982. 10. Applicant is requesting a change of zoning from R-1 to R-3. 11. Property to the west is zoned RS -20 and is in the process of being annexed and zone R-3. 12. The R-3 zone permits one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet of land. The applicant is proposing a density of one unit per 5,000 square feet of land. 13. The rezone will facilitate an infill development which is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. 14. Since 2013 provisions have been made for an additional 2,530 single- family lots within the Pasco Urban Boundary. In the same period only two rezones and one plat have been approved for multi -family development. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and several Plan policies and goals. Land Use Policy LU -3-B encourages "infill" development while H -2-A suggests the City permit a full range of residential environments including townhouses, condominiums and apartments. 2. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. Adjacent residential development and growth within the City makes the zone change appropriate, timely and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The rezone will facilitate a residential infill project on a parcel that would otherwise be difficult to develop. 3. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. E Page 58 of 336 During the hearing testimony was presented about concerns over building heights, building type (number of units per building) and other issues. These questions and issues can be address through the use of a concomitant agreement 4. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. Conditions of Concomitant Agreement should include the following: A. Only townhouse style attached homes with customary accessory structures are permitted to be built; For the purposes of this agreement "townhouse style" means a building containing only four or fewer dwelling units; B. Maximum building heights for the first tier of homes along the northerly and easterly boundary of the property shall be limited to the R-1 height standards of PMC 25.28.050 (5). No special permits shall be authorized for increases in building height over the allowable 25 feet; C. Building designs must incorporate architectural features to create visual interest. All building fronts must be articulated and painted with complementary colors to create a separated and distinctive look for each attached dwelling unit within the two unit structures; D. Each building elevation must contain at least two distinctive architectural features; E. Vinyl and metal siding is prohibited. Siding of all buildings must include singularly or collectively cement fiber board siding, stucco, brick, architectural stone and architectural masonry block, F. All soffits shall be boxed; G. A 15 foot landscaped buffer shall be installed along the easterly and northeasterly property line. Said buffer shall contain a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees spaced no more than 60 feet apart. The trees may be farther apart if they are planted in groupings of three trees per group. The site including all trees and landscaped areas must be regularly maintain in a workmanship like manner, H. In addition to the trees require in G. above the overall site must contain at least two trees for every dwelling unit. The site including all trees and landscaped areas must be regularly maintain in a workmanship like manner, I. Convents, Conditions and Restrictions must be recorded against the property specifying among other things a Home Owners Association is responsible for all site and landscape maintenance, and; D Page 59 of 336 J. Exterior night lighting must be shielded to prevent light spillage. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 18, 2016 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone parcel 117430147 from R-1 to R-3 with conditions as specified in the February 18, 2016 staff report. 7 Page 60 of 336 Vicinity Item: Rezone R-1 to R-3 Map Applicant: Scott Lybbert N File #. Z 2015-006 _ �C-nr�rPL HILL-6?LVD` ^ � �V�h.— IY. f T-������• ...f —�� .n ` 9 .�iT�I 9it 1 ' 1D'�L M�A�R CT CITY LIMITS,,,� WOODBINE DR � z, VALLEY VIEW PLCIO y O -� SITEIYA � � Q � � URF A q Jkv 1IL _ ARGENT-RD- I RGENTRD -` Land Use Item: Rezone R- 1 to R-3 Applicant: Scott Lybbert Map File #: Z 2015-006 CHAPEL HILL BLVD D z Vacant m Multi-Famil 0 v 1 VALLEY VIEW SFDUs (County)1 1-g SFDUs SITE Fire. Station Vacant Comm ARGENT R J� 0 WOODBINE D EL M SFDUs_ • S, 0;4 Zoning Item: Rezone R- 1 to R-3 Applicant: Scott Lybbert Map File #: Z 2015-006 C-7 "O" RS -20 VALLEY VIEW f O (County) a �a RS -72 C-1 CHAPEL HILL BLVD SITE ARGENT r Im J� 0 WOODBINE D R-1 RS -20 I I I EL M i F, • 0;4 ovKinX ivo � A. i�fI{il'Y6pPA_y �r�'IY�.ebfYr// 4 AIiMS Pf' "iWIN '�l_S� s no Est a-ookin-fit f�v pll � �4R +y z�t� y1 � 4✓{�f�` :�}��af�';, Ate'#�� f t gyp, c�,,� �� j.�F�#-±� /Y 1 t! �� S 7 I `4 � fF'L' ! ' ` �QC'►�:s��� 1���£i�� �,W a'� 1PF. l ''.fAll %­-a i6 Mft 'tis a ":,+ as * '` .i.•,e,�+4y' dna 55 i do- .r z 'ate rhe. �1'SM om .P'F -'.,i �� •R} moi. r � e , ,, �-� .-•� Y i � i fly I _� ± 1 � \ - 41 r ftShy o w `�3 1 NINE . ia* I L.....k..s Looking West 1W db 14 , .. r qv AW Own - r: Map pit`-a'� �7, } t , - . , 1 i > 'J. = .. h f - - ...`, "-"- �,i4. _-� „C,. r.. _..i �µ�3F ���:T y'�'ki::�,�•r. „? Fk ^� �,' I ...{ �. -�1.�� { 1 �✓ F - _�Ir =`' '�'if, `` �-, �, ✓ E�•:�' a�if( �ivn�� ` � .:�n" `x-, r iy '�;1 ,. ,;� y rKJ., � � �.� r i.. tea, � r kr •�'� ",5` ,;r r ` r ,�,�q� ' a: '� �`1�-r'!Fl! �. _':c.,-. ...�.� �'" i. � _ t�:t�4���������,: 'i�l.'r.''' � i_:-Ct�r.w�i`. �. ?:��� �'��•.'�''�r"'R'.v'«x-i}ti', � r -':�� .t'- � t J r er� � p�4•± ,"` a a' � �i•'l�Si L r9 : ".Std } t , - . , 1 i > 'J. = .. h f - - ...`, "-"- �,i4. _-� „C,. r.. _..i �µ�3F ���:T y'�'ki::�,�•r. „? Fk ^� �,' I ...{ �. -�1.�� { 1 �✓ F - _�Ir =`' '�'if, `` �-, �, ✓ E�•:�' a�if( �ivn�� ` � .:�n" `x-, r iy '�;1 ,. ,;� y rKJ., � � �.� r i.. tea, � r kr •�'� ",5` ,;r r ` r ,�,�q� ' a: '� �`1�-r'!Fl! �. _':c.,-. ...�.� �'" i. � _ t�:t�4���������,: 'i�l.'r.''' � i_:-Ct�r.w�i`. �. ?:��� �'��•.'�''�r"'R'.v'«x-i}ti', � r -':�� .t'- � Joint Center for Housing Studies Harvard University Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental Housing Mark Obrinsky and Debra Stein March 2007 RR07-14 Prepared for Revisiting Rental Housing: A National Policy Summit November 2006 m by Mark Obrinsky and Debra Stein. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including ® notice, is given to the source. Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University or of any of the persons or organizations providing support to the Joint Center for Housing Studies. Page 69 of 336 Traffic Joint Center for Housing Studies Harvard University On average, apartment residents own fewer cars than single-family homeowners: the latter average two cars per household compared with only one for the former.'? Beyond that, single- family housing generates more automobile trips per household, as evidenced in the table below. Automobile Trips Per Housing Unit Single-family detached Apartment Difference Weekday 9.57 6.72 42% peak AM hour 0.77 0.55 40% peak PM hour 1.02 0.67 52% Saturday 10.10 6.39 58% peak hour 0.94 0.52 81% Sunday 8.78 5.86 50% peak hour 0.86 0.51 69% Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, r Edition (Washington, DC: 2003), Volume 2, pp. 268-332. On weekdays, a single-family detached house generates 42 percent more trips than does a unit in an apartment. The difference is even greater on the weekend: 58 percent more +trips cn� Saturdays, and 50 percent more tri2s on Sundays. This large difference is seen not only in the © by Mark Obrinsky and Debra Stein. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University or of any of the persons or organizations providing support to the Joint Center for Housing Studies. Page 70 of 336 Joint Center for Housing Studies Harvard University Researchers measured a variety of relevant characteristics, including house price, price per square foot, house price appreciation, time on the market, and the ratio of sales price to asking price in order to assess "the worst-case scenarios of multi -family intrusion into a single-family neighborhood." Their conclusions: "We find that large, dense, multi -family rental developments ... do not "We find that if located properly with attractive_landscaping and entranceways, adverse rtce effci._ean be minimized and sometimes can add value. In the long term, such aparttnent complexes probably raise the overall value of detached homes relative to their absence." ' 9 © by Mark Obrinsky and Debra Stein. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University or of any of the persons or organizations providing support to the Joint Center for Housing Studies. " National Association of Home Builders, "Multifamily Market Outlook," Washington, DC, November 2001, pp. 3-4. " Henry O. Pollakowski, David Ritchay, and Zoe Weinrobe, "Effects of Mixed -Income, Multi -family Housing Developments on Single-family Housing Values," Cambridge, MA: NET Center For Real Estate, April 2005, p. xiii. '9 Arthur C. Nelson and Mitch Moody, "Apartments and Detached Home Values," On Common Ground, National Association of Realtors, 2003. See also: Nelson and Moody, "Price Effects of Apartments on Nearby Single-family Detached Residential Homes," Virginia Tech University, 2003. 20 Richard K. Green, Stephen Malpezzi, and Kiat -Ping Seah, "Low Income Housing Tax Credit Housing Developments and Property Values," Madison, WI: The Center for Urban Land Economics Research: 2002, p. 4. 11 Page 71 of 336 Joint Center for Housing Studies Harvard University between housing density and delinquency... The observed correlation coefficients between housing density and the six criminological measures were all small in magnitude (very close to "0"), statistically significant... and in some cases in the opposite direction predicted by the hypothesis of a direct relationship between housing density and crime. 00 The Multifamily Record. Conclusion Further research would certainly be welcome. Even so, we think the available research is fairly strong that multifamily rental housing: (1) does not impose greater costs on local governments; (2) does it increase traffic and parking problems; (3) when well-designed and appropriate to the neighborhood, does not reduce (and may even enhance) property values; and (4) does not inherently attract residents who are less neighborly or more apt to engage in (or attract) criminal activity. Q by Mark ©brinsky and Debra Stein. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including ® notice, is given to the source. Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University or of any of the persons or organizations providing support to the Joint Center for Housing Studies. 30 University of Alaska Justice Center, "The Strength of Association: Housing Density and Delinquency," Anchorage Community indicators, series 3A, No. 1, available at: htip://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/indicators/series03/aciO3a1 housing Rdf 31 See "From Parking to Mixed -Use," Montgomery Gazette, September 28, 2005, at: www.aazette.net/stories/092805/bethnew2O5622 31894 shtml 15 Page 72 of 336 UW Today RESLARC June 26, 2012 Research suggests denser development is good for single-family home values Catherine O'Donnell How do denser neighborhoods affect property values? And whats the economic value of walkable neighborhoods? .L_w- Pedestrians stroll the area around Harbor Steps in downtown Seattle./an Crowfeatherl Creative Commons A study conducted by researchers at the University of Washington_College of Built Environments and a South Korean universit shows that, contrary to popular belief, theres a positive association between higher neighborhood density and the value of single-family residential properties. Researchers modeled the values of single-family homes, multifamily rental buildings, commercial spaces and offices in King County, Wash., which includes Seattle. They used property values as a measure of economic value, analyzing them in relation to neighborhood characteristics that correlate with walking, including access to open Page 73 of 336 space and public transportation, mixed-use zoning and pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks. They learned that pedestrian aids, such as sidewalks and shorter street blocks, as well as a mix of retail, commercial and residential properties significantly contributed to increases in multifamily rental property values. The researchers found that not only did the value of single-family residential properties increase with density of surrounding development, but that the quality of neighborhoods, as defined by access to other land uses, incluo± parks increased with Pensity as well. But one of the lead researchers suggested some caution: "We should be careful to put the research results in the context of King County, where high residential densities are not those of Manhattan, and a relatively small proportion of the housing stock is in high- rise development," said Anne Vernez Moudon, a UW professor of urban design and planning who was one of the lead researchers. "The results should not come as a complete surprise," Moudon said, "as it is well known that property values in neighborhoods like Queen Anne, packed with dense, single- family development and intermittent low-rise apartment buildings and condos near retail, are substantially higher than in some of the countys sprawling subdivisions." It was more surprising, Moudon said, "to find that proximity to retail has a positive effect on multifamily rental properties, and that the value of retail properties benefited from strong pedestrian infrastructure." "The Economic Value of Walkable Neighborhoods" was published in the April issue of Urban Design International. Dong Wook Sohn of Hongik University in Seoul, South Korea, started the research as part of his UW doctoral dissertation. Jeasun Lee, a UW graduate now at Yonsei University in Seoul, is a third author of the paper. Page 74 of 336 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT i I P.O. Box 293, 525 North Third Avenue, Pasco, Washington 99301 (509) 545-34411 Fax (509) 545-3499�.CRQr .57E'tA 2-a t S — 435 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not armlicable" or "dop-, not nnniv" nnly when yni i r --nn aynlain Whv it rime nn+ nnnki nnrl nn+ when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "'project, applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal, proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non -projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements —that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist guidance updated June 2011 Page 75 of 336 A. Background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: AUnn4 C H 2. Name of applicant: Steven Aldrich -� TO 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Contact: Steven Aldrich Scott Lybbert 6720 Aintree Dr 2839 W Kennewick Ave #396 Pasco WA 99301 Kennewick WA 99336 (509) 820-3282 4. Date checklist prepared: December 1, 2015 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Pasco 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): NIA 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The goal is to develop the property into multi family residential homes. Currently only requesting a zone change to R-3 Medium Density Residential. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None known. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. -RJctrre4kt nr�a. ��vn��- iia �.. c.4TH csr� R o�-E reams -U rt r_X 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Change of Zone Application 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Requesting change of zone. P--, `ro "W- FSS --i `to t -LO. (Zc-s 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Ir ->.0 ! 2--/0. is SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 147-11-960) May 2014 Page 2 of 13 Page 76 of 336 Parcel 117430145 PTN SW4SW4 15-9-29 LY NLY OF FCID CANAL & SWLY OF A LN DAF: BEG AT W QTR COR SD SEC; TH S01D27'W ALG W LN THEREOF, 1472.65' TO TPOB; TH S88D32'E, 277.16'; TH S311312'E, 222.54'; TH S40D53'E, 229.96'; TH SO 1 D27'W, 360.02' TO N RIW LN SD CANAL & TERM OF SD LN. TOG WIEASE FOR I&E OVER, UNDER & ACR W 30' OF S721.02' OF N 1472.65' OF SW4 SD SEC TOG W/TRACT B CHAPEL HILL PHASE 1 B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The site has an average slope of roughly 8%. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope is 20%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. 51010 Silt loam Qu/"cY c-0.4.-1 rr�ra.r5 M X"60 mi� S r c- YC -r- r c -gyp ,rc-rc-t�' ,A -tr�-� c7�vr S d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No filling or grading proposed for this change of zone application. CIAA01n• bt wfi-d_ rcc v L fe-ta4_ o f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No clearing or construction proposed for this change of zone application. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No clearing or construction proposed for this change of zone application. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: NIA �, &ta i — 2. Air SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2614 Page 3 Of 13 Page 77 of 336 a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during constructionzoperation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. NIA b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: NIA 3. Water a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. if appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No project work proposed. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No project work proposed. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. NIA: No project work proposed. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground Water: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 4 Of 13 Page 78 of 336 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NIA c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. NIA 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. NIA 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. NIA d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: NIA 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs x grass x pasture crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other — other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? NIA: No construction proposed for change of zone application. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 147-11-960 May 2014 Page 5 of 13 Page 79 of 336 c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None proposed. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Cheat grass, Russian Thistle, etc. Normal to the area. 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: quail mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: squirrels, rabbit, skunk fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: none b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. No species observed on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes, Pasco is within the Pacific Flyway d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None proposed. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None proposed. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. NIA b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. SEPA Environmental checklist {WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 6 of 13 Page 80 of 336 c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Proposal shall comply with the energy conservation code. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None known. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None known. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. None known. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Fire and emergency services. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None proposed. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None known. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. None. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None proposed. 8. Land and Shoreline Use SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 7 of 13 Page 81 of 336 a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The site is currently used as a single family residence. To the north are multi -family residences and to the east single family residences. To the south is a fire station. The proposal will not affect current land uses on nearby properties. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? No 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No c. Describe any structures on the site. Single family residence and a barn. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? None. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-1 Low Density Residential f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Mixed Residential g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NIA h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. None known. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Same as currently reside in the existing residence, 2 to 5. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NIA $EPA Environmental checklist {WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 8 of 13 Page 82 of 336 Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan because the mixed residential comprehensive plan designation was created to establish a transitional zone with a variety of housing options. The Mixed Residential Comprehensive Plan designation supports zoning ranging from single family to high density residential. The proposal is to re -zone the property to R-3 Medium Density Residential. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: None 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid-dle, or low-income housing. None proposed under this application. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None proposed. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? None proposed. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None proposed. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None proposed. SEPA Environmental checklist JWAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 9 of 13 Page 83 of 336 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Chiawana and associated ball field are 4.5 mile from the site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No impacts proposed. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? if so, specifically describe. No b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. None known. c. describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. Site review. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. No construction proposed under this application. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. No access revisions are proposed for this change of zone application. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 10 of 13 Page 84 of 336 b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Benton Franklin Transit serves Road 68 at Burden Road to the north and Court Street to the south. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? No project currently proposed. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No project currently proposed. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? No project proposed. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None proposed. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No project proposed. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None proposed. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960► May 2014 Page 11 of 13 Page 85 of 336 electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other __ b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. NIA C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency 's relying on them to make its decision. Signature: !Z-? -,&T Name of signee: S}ems Position and Agency/Organization: Date Submitted: Community & Economic Development Department This application was reviewed by the Planning Division of the Community & Economic Development Department. Any comments or changes made by the Department are entered in the body of theecklist and contain initials of the reviewer. \' Reviewer Signature 1 z.. /D . /5 Date D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 12 of 13 Page 86 of 336 Groundwater will be infiltrated on site, no discharge to water is anticipated. No appreciable noise production is expected. Minimal emissions increase. No production, storage or release of toxic substances. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: NIA 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The project is 1.6 miles from the Columbia River. No project currently proposed. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: NIA How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? No impact anticipated. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: NIA 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? No sensitived areas identified. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: NIA 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? NIA Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: NIA 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No project proposed, however future development may include up to 50 town homes. The City water and sewer system has capacity for these units. The existing street system will not be appreciabtly impacted by this number of units. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: NIA 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The project will comply with all local, state and federal laws. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 13 of 13 Page 87 of 336 ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST Applicant Information Name Steven Aldrich Name Phone 6720 Aintree Dr Pasco WA 99301 Project Information Location Aintree Drive Description 5 acre residential lot Pasco Wa This worksheet was designed to help project proponents and government agencies identify when a project needs further analysis regarding adverse effects on ESA (Endangered Species Act) listed salmonids. Salmonids are salmon, trout and chars, e.g. bull trout. For our purposes, "ESA listed salmonids" is defined as fish species listed as endangered, threatened or being considered for listing. If ESA listed species are present or ever were present in the watershed where your project will be located, your project has the potential for affecting them, and you need to comply with the ESA. The questions in this section will help determine if the ESA listings will impact your project. The Fish Program Manager at the appropriate Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) regional office can provide information for the following two questions 1. Are ESA listed salmonids currently present in the watershed in which your project will be located? Yes X No Please describe. 2. Has there ever been an ESA listed salmonid stock present in this watershed? Yes -X— No Uncertain Please describe. September 1999 1 Page 88 of 336 If you answered "yes" to either of the above questions, you should complete the remainder of this checklist. PROJECT SPECIFICS: The questions in this section are specific to the project and vicinity. 1. Name of watershed: Columbia River 2. Name of nearest waterbody: Columbia River 3. What is the distance from this project to the nearest body of water? 1.6 miles Often a buffer between the project and a stream can reduce the chance of a negative impact to fish. 4. What is the current land use between the project and the potentially affected water body (parking lots, farmland, etc}? Farmland and residential lots 5. Is the project above a: • natural permanent barrier • natural temporary barrier • man-made barrier (culvert, • other (explain): (waterfall) Yes_ (beaver pond) Yes_ dam) Yes_X No x No x No 6. If yes, are there any resident salmonid populations above the blockage? Yes_X_ No Don't know 7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface (including pavement & roof area)? No project is proposed with the change of zone application. September 1999 2 Page 89 of 336 FISH MIGRATION: The following questions will help determine if this project could interfere with migration of adult and juvenile fish. Both increases and decreases in water flows can affect fish migration. I. Does the project require the withdrawal of: i. Surface water? Yes No_X_ Amount Name of surface water body ii. Ground water? Amount From where _ Depth of well Yes No—X 2. Will any water be rerouted? Yes Na_X If yes, will this require a channel change? 3. Will there be retention or detention ponds? Yes No_X_ If yes, will this be an infiltration pond or a surface discharge to either a municipal storm water system or a surface water body? If to a surface water discharge, please give the name of the waterbody. 4. Will this project require the building of new roads? Yes —No — X _ ,Increased road mileage may affect the timing of water reaching a stram and may impact fish habitat. 5. Are culverts proposed as part of this project? Yes No—X 6. Will topography changes affect the duration/direction of runoff flows? Yes No—X— If yes, describe the changes.. 7. Will the project involve any reduction of the floodway or floodplain by filling or other partial blockage of flows? Yes No If yes, how will the loss of flood storage be mitigated by your project? September 1999 3 Page 90 of 336 WATER QUALITY: The following questions will help determine if this project could adversely impact water quality. Such impacts can cause problems for listed species. Water quality can be made worse by runoff from impervious surfaces, altering water temperature, discharging contaminants, etc. 1. Do you know of any problems with water quality in any of the streams within this watershed? Yes No If yes, describe. 2. Will your project either reduce or increase shade along or over a waterbody? Yes No Removal of shading vegetation or the building of structures such as docks or floats often result in a change in shade. 3. Will the project increase nutrient loading or have the potential to increase nutrient loading or contaminants (fertilizers, other waste discharges, or runoff) to the waterbody? Yes No 4. Will turbidity be increased because of construction of the project or during operation of the project? Yes No In -water or near water work will often increase turbidity. 5. Will your project require long term maintenance, i.e. bridge cleaning, highway salting, chemical sprays for vegetation management, clearing of parking lots? Yes No If yes, please describe. September 1999 4 Page 91 of 336 VEGETATION: The following questions are designed to determine if the project will affect riparian vegetation, thereby, adversely impacting salmon. 1. Will the project involve the removal of any vegetation from the stream banks? Yes No If yes, please describe the existing conditions, and the amount and type of vegetation to be removed. 2. If any vegetation is removed, do you plan to re -plant? Yes No If yes, what types of plants will you use? September 1999 5 Page 92 of 336 RESOURCES Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Website www. wdPv,.u,-a ov_ This site has useful information on fish habitat. Washington Department of Ecology Website k w%x.ecv.«, a.gov Click on the Water Quality button on the left side of this page. National Marine Fisheries Services Website Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) maps can be found at c,vtiv-" . nwr.noaa.V Click on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) links to view the ESU maps and other information. NOTE: Most applicants should have the information necessary to answer most of the questions in this checklist. Additional information will need to be obtained by local and state agencies if it appears that the project is likely to affect ESA listed species. September 1999 6 Page 93 of 336 . r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (509) 545-3441 1 Fax(509)545-3499 P.O. Box 293,525 North Third Avenue, Pasco, Washington 99301 ftdML DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal: Rezoning a 5 -acre site from R-1 (Low -Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium -Density Residential). Proponent: STEVEN E & CRYSTAL M ALDRICH 6720 AINTREE DR PASCO, WA 99301 Location of Proposal: 6720 Aintree Drive, Pasco, WA Lead Agency: City of Pasco The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. 13 There is no comment period for this DNS. ■ This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by: Friday, December 25, 2015 Responsible Official: David I. McDonald Position/Title: CITY PLANNER Address: P. O. BOX 293, PASCO, WA 99301-0293 Phone: (509) 545-3441 Date: 12/10/2015 Signature: ED Number: SEPA2015-035 Master File Number: [Z2015-006] Page 94 of 336 Opposition to the Rezoning of the Property in Application MF# Z 2015-006 The Conditions in the Vicinity which Support Denying the Rezoning of the Area: • Changing the current R-1 zoning Will substantially change the nature and character of the development directly adjacent to the property in the proposal® While there are apartments Located in the chapel Hill Development, they are north of the property in question and behind other single family residences, the properties that are directly adjacent to the property in question are zoned R-1 and RS -20 (County) -Low density, and have been developed as single family residence v CD 0 W W __M V T � /T Y 4 O til W W vs. L No Cost Comparison /Analysis Submitted v CO 0 W W • No cost comparison was submitted with the application to support the claim that the land cannot be developed for single family residences. Needed to support substantial chane for rezoning • No cost comparison was done to see if development of R-2 zoning was feasible Facts to Justify the Denial of the Rezoning on the Basis of Harming the Public Health, Safety and General Welfare: • The traffic situation along Road 68 has led to the Road 68 corridor Project to help reduce congestion and accidents along Road 68. The increased traffic in the area is a change in conditions that warrants denial of the requested rezoning, as such rezoning would further increase traffic along Road 68, negatively impacting public safety. • Traffic would also be increased on Aintree Drive. • The requested rezoning would negatively impact already overcrowded schools in the Pasco School district, such as McLoughlin Middle School and Ruth Livingston and Mark Twain Elementary schools. • There is already R-3 zoned land that remains undeveloped. The Effect the Proposed Zoning Change Will Have on the Nature and Value of the Adjoining Property and the Comprehensive Plan: • The examples sited in the Staff Notes, "Columbia Villas" and "Navigator Villas", are not similar to the proposed development, Valley View, Mr. Lybbert has submitted. Mr. Lybbert's proposal is for 3 story townhouses with tucked in parking, similar to Island Estate Townhouses located near walmart. • The Columbia Villas are 1 and 2 story duplexes and are transitional to the neighboring housing area in height, parking (they have garages similar to the neighboring single family), green space and density of the lots. Contini i,ad ki • The Navigator Villas are also only 2 stories and are directly adjacent to an apartment complex. o There are no single family housing sandwiched between the two multi -family developments • The proposed 3 story townhouses with tucked in parking will change the entire nature of the current subdivision. • The Proposed Valley View development will affect the value of the properties that are directly adjacent 0 W W a Columbia Villas Navigator Villas v cc 0 0 CA) 0 CA) w a) Adverse Affect On Property Value: The Effect on the Property owners if the Request iso,,, ,P Not Granted: • Alternatives to Rezoning that will allow relief for the property owner if request not granted: • Subdivide the property to allow single family homeowners adjacent to the property to purchase the land currently used for horses. Lots will be added to current homeowner plots. • The subdivided land could be sold to an interested party who would like to house and train horses on the land which is what the land is currently being used for. • Green Space for Chapel Hill Development Staff Finding of Fact : 14, hqY • issue with #2: The site does not "border" C-1 zones north (the county land adjacent to the land in question is bordered north by C-1). Further, the land does not "border" the apartments. There are R-1, single family residences between the property in question and The crossing at Chapel Hill (apartments). There are also homes and outbuildings currently zoned RS -20 by the county to the West. All the land to the East of the property is Zoned R-1 and contain single family residences. • Land south is zoned differently; however, the dentist building provides the appearance of a large single family residence, similar in design to the current single family development. Proposed Mitigation • Propose duplexes for the development • The scope of the proposed multi -family development will be similar to that of Columbia Villas - sited in the Staff notes as an example of a development that has not hurt adjoining single family property values. • A mix of one and two-story duplexes/ town homes similar design to the single houses adjacent to property in question. No unit in the development wild be of a height taller than atwo-story single family residence in the adjacent single family housing. Continued,,,, Proposed Mitigation Continued,* Proposed Mitigation • If the dwellings are allowed to be built taller than those in adjacent single family development, require 3 times the height of the multi -family dwellings for mandatory setback from all R-1 property lines. • No tucked under parking. Properties must have adjacent garages; similar in design of Columbia Villas and the single family development adjacent to the proposed site. Continued: Proposed Mitigation • A traffic light be installed at Vista way/ Road 68 to allow for ease of access into the development from Road 68. • No access from Aintree Drive to the development to mitigate some of the traffic concerns for the surrounding homeowners. • The current single family dwelling at the 6720 Aintree Drive will remain R-1 and will not be torn down and developed into R-3 multi family dwelling. Kalyn Karlberg's, resident of 6614 Aintree Drive, Pasco, WA, Talking Points for Planning Commission Meeting to discuss Proposed Zoning Application (MF #Z 2015-006), 21 January 2015 1. The conditions in the vicinity which support denying the rezoning of the area: Changing the current R-1 Zoning will substantially change the nature and character of the development directly adjacent to the property in the proposal. While there are apartments located in the Chapel Hill Development, they are North of the property in question and behind other single family houses, the properties that are directly adjacent to the property in question are zoned R-1 and RS -20 (County) —low density and have been developed as single family residences. The changes since the city zoned the proposed land to R-1 — has been the building of more single family homes directly adjacent to the proposed site_ It has made the nature of the neighborhood into a single family subdivision. Keeping the land as R-1 would be consistent with the current conditions of the community_ Second, no cost comparison was submitted with the application to support the claim that the land cannot be developed for single-family homes_ No cost comparison was done to see if development of R-2 was feasible; no cost comparison to show what the profits would be derived between the costs of R-1 development and R-3. Is it a question of earning $20,000 per unit vs. $50,000? Facts to justify the denial of the re -zoning on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare o The traffic situation along Road 68 has led to the Road 68 Corridor Project to help reduce the traffic congestion along Road 68. The increase in traffic in the area is a changed conditions that warrants no zoning change that would lead to increased traffic along the Road 68 Corridor until such time as the other recommended changes be developed, such as the extension of Chapel Road to the proposed extension of Road 76. The increase in traffic from a more densely populated area will likely lead to increased traffic accidents as residents of the proposed development attempt to access Road 68, which is very busy during the morning and afternoon commute. Residents will have difficulty accessing the development from Road 68. As cars try to turn into the development, it will cause traffic to build up north on road 68, which is already a problem. The proposed development submitted by Mr. Lybbert also allows access for the proposed development from Aintree Drive. Residents along Aintree Drive already experience individuals speeding along Aintree Drive and parking along the initial curve of Aintree Drive, has caused a number of near miss accidents. Furthermore, the proposed development would mean the recommendations to widen Road 68 to five lanes to Argent Road, as proposed in the Road 68 Corridor study, would be unfeasible. ® The building of these multi -family dwellings — according to the proposal possibly 48-50 units -- will also have an impact on an already overcrowded schools in the Pasco School district, such as McLoughlin Middle School. Has the impact on the schools been considered? Page 111 of 336 The planning staff reports also notes "the rezone will also expand opportunities for additional housing options for Pasco residents." But I would argue that there is already R-3 land available that remains undeveloped. If the planning commission is concerned about "additional housing options for Pasco residents" they should encourage the development of the lands already designated R-3 rather than re -zone land directly adjacent to low density housing. 3. The Effect it will have on the nature and value of the adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan: + We disagree with the Staff report as the examples they site in their report "Columbia Villas" and Navigator Villas" are not similar to the proposal Mr. Lybbert has submitted, which are 3 story townhouses with tucked in parking. The Columbia Villas are 1 and 2 story duplexes and are transitional to the neighboring housing area in height, parking (they have garages similar to the neighboring single family), green space and density of the lots. (See examples). Furthermore, The Navigator Villas are also only 2 stories. The proposed 3 story townhouses with tucked in parking are similar to those Island Estate Row houses near Walmart and will change the nature of the current subdivision. + While the overall development of the Chapel Hill subdivision includes two apartment complexes, those apartment complexes sit primarily north of the single family housing and spread east. The re -zoning of the property in question would sandwich a portion of the current single-family homes in between 2 -Multi -family developments. I disagree this won't affect the value of the properties that are directly adjacent to the property in question, as I would never have bought the home I currently have if I had known there was the potential for R-3 zoning to the South of the property. Furthermore, those properties lying directly adjacent paid a higher price as the homes were considered view lots. It was understood that the property to the south was zoned for R-1 single family, so the maximum height would be two story. It also was understood that the future use of the property was for the development of similar type homes as the current single family housing. I am ok with single family housing or housing similar in scope as to my neighborhood. 4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted: The owners' claims in their application for rezoning that they will have to pay higher property taxes for their large lot. However, if the owners were to sell the land behind their home, approximately 4 acres to the homeowners living adjacent to the land, the homeowner would only be paying taxes on the land his home and outbuilding sit on now which is what the average homeowner pays. The 4 acres can be subdivided and added to the lots already owned by the adjacent property owners. Or the land could be sold to an interested party who would like to house and train horses on the land which is what the land is currently being used for. + The staff report indicates that if the request is not granted it is probable the property will continue to remain underdeveloped. However, there is no indication the property owner has Page 112 of 336 considered other developments for the property. Has the homeowner considered subdividing his property and selling the land separate from the house and outbuilding? I've talked to real estate agents and they all agree that if the house and outbuildings were separate from the land, the homeowner would have no problem selling the home for its current value. o Some examples of what the land could be developed: There is green space set aside adjacent to the R-3 Chapel Hill Development. Why couldn't there be a land swap? The proposed green space is already adjacent to R-3 developed property. It could be developed as more R-3 development and allow the land behind the single family housing become the Green space/park for the Chapel Hill Development. Also, has R-2 development been considered? R-2 with two story duplexes similar to the Colombia Villas been considered? It is more in character and nature of the R-1 single family house and is a nice transition to multiple family? S. Issues with the Staff Finding of Fact: a. 2. Issue with #2: The site does not "border" C-1 zones north (the county land adjacent to the land in question is bordered north by C-1) . Further, the land does not "border," the apartments. There are R-1, single family homes between the property in question and The Crossing at Chapel Hill (apartments). There are also homes and outbuildings currently zoned RS -20 by the county to the West. All the land to the East of the property is Zoned R-1 and contain single family homes. only the land directly south is zoned differently. There is a dentist office and the fire station directly south of the property in question. The Dentist office is one story and provides the appearance of a large single family home. If the Planning Commission and the City Council vote to re -zone the proposed site, there are condition the single family housing would request to mitigate significant adverse impact from the proposal. 1. The scope of the proposed multi -family development will be similar to that of Colombia Villas —sited in the Staff notes as an example of a development that has not hurt adjoining single family property values. a. A mix of one and two story duplexes/townhomes similar design to the single houses adjacent to property in question. No unit in the development will be of a height taller than a two-story single family home in the adjacent single family housing. L Request 3 times the height of the multi -family dwellings for mandatory setback from all R-1 property lines unless the property is rezoned to only allow for R-2, duplexes. Then the standard setback for R-2 duplexes would apply. 2. A traffic light be installed at Vista way/Road 68 to allow for ease of access into the development from Road 68. Furthermore, Road 68 will be the only access to the development. 3. There will be no access from Aintree Drive to the development. No access from Aintree Drive will mitigate some of the traffic concerns for the surrounding homeowners. Page 113 of 336 4. The current single family residence at the 6720 Aintree Drive will remain R-1 and will not be torn down and developed into R-3 multi family dwelling. Page 114 of 336 We, the undersigned owners of property affected by the requested zoning change described in the referenced file (MF# Z 2015-006), do hereby protest against any change of the land Development Code which would zone the property to any classification other than R-1 (Low -Density Residential) • That portion of the SW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 15, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM. Lying northerly of the FCID canal except that portion plated as Chapel Hill Division, 2 and that portion platted as Plat 2010-14. LEGAL SIGNATURE OF OWNER PRINTED NAME OF OWNER PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Address and/or lot and block number) pd 6Dkc Lh --------- vvf0---- ------------- ---------- --------------_1�--'`�-- Y-4 EP;�f_nu&_DW__6__ P9_ Page 115 of 336 LEGAL SIGNATURE OF O NER PRINTED NAME OF OWNER PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1 ' � � % (Address and/or lot and black n�mbrer) UGI %e >�. r ,� ----- -------------------- ------------------------------------------------- __------- - _____-_____-__-----------_- �' - - -------------------------- --------------------- -- --- --- -- - - ------ a -- CLC �'n S/� r� eG d er yo ! i1rn /�' � o Di2- ------------------.t--------- --- -- -- -- - - _ --------- p --------j- ----------------- - - -------------------------------------------- ' ? _----- ���J �' .�n`d-'-L _ r_-------_- --- '---'' ----- --- - ---------------------------- -- Uc---------------------- ---- � �r ---- -- - -- -- --- ---------------------------------------- - oto -�------ ----------------------- - --- _ - - --- ------------------ --- ----------------------------1-- J - '------------ - -------------- ati=------------------------------------------------ --- -�-�-----------_ - __-- -(,Lao- t,%wv\d , C -v - ------------------- r --------�I�,----- -- ------------ ---------- ----------------------------------------- -1 0 ----- �------- ------------- ---'� CEr°f,"� .6 �,.®--------_ _ 2 ------------ -- -------------------------------------- �- -- ---- ------------------ — ----- ------------------- © 1 --- -------------------------- -_----- -------------------------.►•-----------_--_ _ _ -_ _� ./, y1K (c® --------------- Page 116 of 336 LEGAL SIGNATURE OF OWNER -- - ------------- -- ------------ ------ --------------- t uy PRINTED NAME OF OWNER PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Address and/or lot and block number) -------p ------ ----o r _------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- ���� 91SALk k s� ---- - -- -- -_-- -_-- A�LAZ ----- - ------ - r--------- 4---- ------�------------------------------- I I 111. .. .-, a ----1"-- - pit, --------- _'p!Sj_____ �. - - ��� ------- / I 4r p e --------------------- �, rr',---��� ------ ------ an---- qAL-------------------- �� � �� ►�__ �� _��--���e ----------------------------------------- ---- VA- ----- ------------`--------------------'`-'- - 7`'dG_------- 1'�------------ Zl --- - D L- --- —-------- ----- -�-- ----6L--------------�_ --- --� ,---- -- --------------- --- -- -- --- h 4 - ----------- - - -------------------------- - �- `-----------`-------------------------------- --- - r - -- -------------- (02 " ----------& --------- " ,'"Ir �� e, -----------------=----------=---------------- ---- ----------- — --- - --- 2F ----,["` _ - n i it / / "3 , - --- __ - c--- -------��JCY)VIFFr -------- ----- - -i--�-—�� ISAW �*4 Ze Page 117 of 336 LEGAL_ SIGNATURE OF OWNER PRINTED NAME OF OWNER PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (Address and/or tot and block number) -- ---------------------------Is4hAe, --------------------- ----------- `I.-----------------------------------------�---��nf-_J �� - -- - - - - -------------------------��� _ ---.y�q�" -- t --� -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------- Page 118 of 336 Scott I Lybbert 2839 W Kennewick Ave. #396 Kennewick WA 99336 Telephone (509) 820-3282 Fax (866) 746-4884 gcottlybbertftniafl.coin December 10. 2015 Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development Department 525 N. 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 Re: Rezone and Annexation Request, 6720 Aintree Dr. Dear Mr. McDonald, As we have discussed in previous conversations, the project has a couple of scheduling challenges. Due to these circumstances, we request the rezone and annexation application be reviewed and a recommendation put fortli to City Council for approval at the planning commission hearing on Thursday, 21 January 2016. Here is a recap of the scheduling challenges. One, the sewer line construction will require a crossing of the irrigation canal at the south end of the property. The Franklin County Irrigation District requires that this sewer line crossing be installed and completed by I March. 2016. This deadline requires design, the obtaining of engineering approval and the construction of the sewer in the next few months. Second, to design the sewer system and the irrigation canal crossing, we will also need to develop engineering; drawings for the subdivision. The development of these engineering 9 t� drawings, before we know if the City will support the rezone and annexation approvals, poses significant risk to the project. The request for the condensed process derives from the need for confidence the Planning Commission will recommend approval of the rezone and annexation. request to the City Council. This will ensure the development risks can be fully understood. If this process cannot be condensed, it may negatively impact the viability of the project. We appreciate the City's consideration of this approach and look forward to further direction, so we can plan our efforts and expenditures accordingly. Regards, S-A'0 4-- cottLybbe t Page 119 of 336 Page 120 of 336 City of Pasco 19 January 2016 Community Development Department Planning Commission 525 N. 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 Sir/Ma'am, I, Kalyn Karlberg, request 20 minutes to speak at the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on 21 January 2016 as I will be representing a number of homeowners in the subdivision neighboring the property under the re -zoning request (MF# Z 2015-006) submitted by Scott Lybbert. I plan to present a presentation to the Planning Commission. Sincerely, KaIynk. ar}Berg 6614 Aintree Drive Pasco, WA 99301 208-305-9224 kalynk@yahoo.com Page 121 of 336 City of Pasco 19 January 2016 Community Development Department Planning Commission 525 N. 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 Sir/Ma'am, On 1/13/2016, I, Kalyn Karlberg, stopped by the Planning Department requesting a copy of the application submitted by Scott Lybbert (MF# Z 2015-006) but only received the proposed Valley View Multi -Family Development plan dated 11/4/2015. After consolations with an attorney, l should have received a copy of the entire application/petition and any environmental impact studies submitted with the application. This letter serves as my written request for a copy of MF# Z 2015-006 and the five day response by the city begins on 1/13/2016, the initial date of my request. Furthermore, I request to be notified about all further actions, votes (to include any upcoming city council votes regarding the re -zoning), meetings, and document submissions to include applications and studies pertaining to the re -zoning request MF# Z 2015-006. Sincerely, Katyn Kar.Haerg 6614 Aintree Drive Pasco, WA 99301 208-305-9224 kalynk@yahoo.com Page 122 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SIM 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE CITY OF PASCO In Re: Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Scott Lybbert), Applicant. MF # Z 2015-006 PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PUBLIC MEETING TIME: 7:00 p.m., Thursday, January 21, 2016 TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall Pasco, Washington CALLED BY: City of Pasco REPORTED BY: ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR License No. 2408 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 11 Page 123 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 lom 9 SIM 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN LOREN POLK COMMISSIONER PAUL MENDEZ COMMISSIONER TANYA BOWERS COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY COMMISSIONER GABRIEL PORTUGAL FOR THE CITY OF PASCO: MR. DAVID MCDONALD MR. RICK WHITE MS. KRYSTLE SHANKS ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 2 Page 124 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 7 p.m., at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the Pasco Planning Commission Meeting was taken before ChaRae Kent, Certified Court Reporter and Registered Professional Reporter. The following proceedings took place: (EXCERPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS) CHAIRMAN POLK: Next we move on to our public hearing. So the first is Master File Z 2015-006. A rezone from R-1 low density residential to R-3 medium density residential, applicant Scott Lybbert. And the City will give us some analysis. MR. MCDONALD: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Commission Members. As mentioned, this is a request and application for a rezone from R-1 to R-3 for a site located just north of the fire station on Road 68 to the west of -- and to the west of Road 68, south of Aintree Lane or drive. This may be familiar to some of you that have been on the planning commission for a while. As you'll recall, back in 2013, there was an application before you for a rezone and a preliminary plat on this very property for a 15 -- if I remember right -- 15 lot subdivision. That was subsequently recommended by the planning commission and approved by the city council. And as the developer was ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 125 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 doing his engineering work studying for the project, they determined that, because of the configuration of the property and the elevation change, there's about a 30 -foot difference in elevation from Aintree Drive at curb level to the irrigation ditch. And it made it very difficult and expensive to get utilities in there, particularly sewer. So the developer, who was Hayden Homes at the time, just basically abandoned the project and moved on to other places to develop. We now have an individual that feels that if the density could be increased a little bit that they would be able to carry the cost of the infrastructure, which would include installing a sewer underneath the irrigation canal and directing it out towards a manhole just to the north of the fire station. And that is basically why the request has been made for R-3. Now, a little bit of background. This site is in a larger area that has been included in the comprehensive plan for over 36 years as an area for mixed residential development. You may wonder what mixed residential development means. And comprehensive plan on Page 17, it identifies what can occur in those areas. And it lists single-family homes, patio homes, townhouses, apartments and condominiums. And then the eligible zoning for mixed ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 126 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 residential area includes all of the single family zones R-1 -- RS -20 all the way to R-1 and then also includes R-2 and R-3. So you can have a mixture of residential development within those areas in the comp plan. They're designated for that. And you find that that's how the Chapel Hill development was planned, platted and then ultimately developed. There was single-family homes within that subdivision. There's a large apartment complex. There's another apartment complex along the freeway to the north side of Chapel Hill. And then there's another area that's been set aside for multi -family that hasn't been built on. This subdivision also included some commercial zoning to the north of Chapel Hill, north of the multi -family area on the map, and then out along Road 68 there was also an area that was designated for commercial development. And part of that is where you see the new Maverick gas station and the little strip center that Maverick built. CHAIRMAN POLK: I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. MCDONALD: I'm just breathing, catching my breath here. When the planning commission considers rezone, there are a number of things that the code requires you to take a look at, and those are listed under PMZ 2588.030. I believe there's five items. I won't read through all of ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 127 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I them. But there's two that I'm going to read. And the first one is you need to consider change in conditions within the community, basically, that would warrant other or additional zoning. And as I said, this was zoned R-1 from RT back in 2013. So from that time you need to think of things that have changed in the community that could possibly warrant this property being rezoned. And I've listed some for you there. Basically, the conditions that I've identified center around all the single-family plats that have been approved in the last two and a half years. And basically we have an abundance of single-family lots that have been approved, either through the preliminary plat process or the final plat process. And somewhere in the neighborhood of over 2,000 single-family lots that are now available within inventory to allow single-family development. In addition to that, Franklin County with inside our urban growth boundaries also approved a number of plats. And, again, these plats have been single-family plats, and they've added 242 single-family lots to the inventory. And last year, 2014, excuse me, if some of you will recall, the Department of Natural Resources that owns several hundred acres to the west of Road 68 south of I-182 requested that that property be rezoned. And, in fact, it was rezoned, 188 acres of it, for low density ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 128 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 single-family residential development. So if we have, as I said, an abundance of single-family development. Now, areas that can be developed for single family. Now, on the other hand, in that same period, we had one plat that was approved and then ultimately developed for multi -family development. And that's the plat that is on Sandifur Parkway. If you just think in your minds to the west of the new Gesa building, there's a small development in there with town homes. That was a multi -family project. The other things that have changed is the City tried last year to have our urban growth boundary amended a little bit to include some more land within the boundary to give us more opportunities for development. That was denied by the County. And so that will cause more development to be focused within the boundaries rather than expanding outward. And then, lastly, as I mentioned, Hayden Homes did a complete study of this property in 2013 in an effort to develop it for single-family homes. They were unable to do that because of the cost of the infrastructure and the ability of a 15 lot subdivision to be able to cover those costs. Moving on to item 3 under the list that you need to ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 129 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 �3 consider is the affect on the nature and value of adjoining properties. And I suspect that you'll hear something about this this evening. You've heard this in the past when rezones have taken place from multi -family next to lower density, concerns over what happens to values. And as I've explained in the past, if you look at the Franklin County records, the assessor's records, relating to taxes, the experience in Pasco anyway has been than when we locate higher density multi -family development next to lower density, there really is no impact on values. In fact, if you go to the website today and look up property values adjacent to the new Columbia Villas subdivision that I just mentioned up on Sandifur Parkway, where those town homes were built, some of those homes are only 40 feet away from the back of the single-family homes in the subdivision to the west. And in all cases, those homes have increased in value, some up from the size $5,400 in one year's time. And that's after the town homes were built there. The same thing occurred to the north of Columbia Villas at the very north end of Road 68 where Navigator Villas were built a couple years ago, in fact. And, again, those are four-plex town home -type buildings. There's 178 units there. And, again, that backs up to a single-family development with single-family homes. And ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 130 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 E the values of those homes have increased. And in this case, they've increased a little more than they have down by Columbia Villas. Some up to $6,600 in a year's time. Even though there's apartments behind them. This isn't unique to Pasco. We've provided for you in the past reports that have been done nationally about the impacts and the affects of multi -family next to single family. And various studies and reports that have been done throughout the country indicate the same thing that I've just pointed out with our own tax assessor records. There was a study done in Seattle by the University of Washington about three years ago that addressed this subject. And it found that, again, single-family home value was not impacted negatively as a result of multi -family construction next door. And just -- this will be part of the record, this information that I've mentioned to you. Also a study done out of Harvard University mentions the same thing related to property values, if I can find the section. This study was done in 2007. And they quote several other studies, national homebuilder studies and others from MIT. We find that large dense multi -family rental developments do not negatively impact the sales price of nearby single-family homes. We find that if located properly with attractive landscaping and ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 131 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 entranceways, adverse price affects can be minimized and do not impact the values. And there's several other quotes in there. We've also provided within our report a list of findings of fact that you can review and consider and review the conclusions that -- or added the conclusions that you need consider with this rezone. I should mention that the applicant is also -- has a companion piece to this project endeavoring to buy the property directly to the west. The old Burgess property, the yellow house that sits up on the hill, and join the properties together. So if this is rezoned, the project will focus towards Road 68 rather than towards the interior of the project. Maybe one other item related to traffic. You may hear some testimony tonight about traffic. It should be pointed out that typically multi -family projects per unit anyway do not generate more traffic than single family. In fact, on a per unit basis, they're about 42 percent less in traffic generation for some reason. That's what the engineers from The Transportation Institute have found through numerous studies year after year. And that's published in the ITE manual. And that's what municipalities and engineering departments use in traffic studies. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 132 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 If I can find that quote. Typically apartment unit generates 6.72 vehicle trips per day. And that's consistent around the country. And a residential house generates about 10 vehicle trips a day. And then on the weekends, I don't know why, but the Institute of Traffic Engineers in the reports indicate that multi -family development even has fewer traffic generation numbers on weekends. Don't know why but that's what they claim. With that, I'd be open to any questions or comments that you might have. CHAIRMAN POLK: All right. Do any commissioners have questions? COMMISSIONER BOWERS: What will happen to the single-family residence and small barn that's on this site? MR. MCDONALD: The small barn, it's my understanding, would be removed. The single-family home would remain. COMMISSIONER BOWERS: Where is it on the site? MR. MCDONALD: The barn or the house? COMMISSIONER BOWERS: Well, both of them. I didn't know if they were connected or what. MR. MCDONALD: That's the house right there (indicated) and then the barn is just to the right, right there (indicated). The barn is actually encroaching on the property line to the east. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 133 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 COMMISSIONER BOWERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN POLK: I have a couple questions. MR. MCDONALD: Okay. CHAIRMAN POLK: Can you remind me, do R-4 zones come with any kind of perimeter walls required? MR. MCDONALD: No. The request here is for R-3, but there is no requirement within the zoning regulations for a wall. It doesn't mean that through the course of the hearing process you could require that through a concomitant agreement. In fact, we're recommending that a concomitant agreement be established to enhance or increase a landscape buffer along the eastern edge of the property. CHAIRMAN POLK: Would that concomitant agreement come with the next public hearing, is that correct, or would it come with this? MR. MCDONALD: No, if you read the letter up on the bench, Mr. Lybbert has asked that you take care of this business this evening. They are trying to meet a deadline as far as getting the sewer underneath the irrigation canal before the water is put back in the canal. If they miss that deadline, then it may delay the project. CHAIRMAN POLK: Right. What I meant is, would it come with the next application that's under -- because I know -- oh, I'm sorry. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 134 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 MR. MCONDALD: The next application that you'll be hearing will be on the annexation. CHAIRMAN POLK: Okay. MR. MCDONALD: So it is a companion piece to it but they're separate properties and owned by separate property owners at the present time. CHAIRMAN POLK: Okay. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Maybe you said this and I didn't get it. But to have access to Road 68, the road that I see here is joins Valley View where the exit to access Road 68 and that land, does it belong to someone or... MR. MCDONALD: The land along Road 68 is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Thorn in a partnership. And they have entered into an agreement with the applicant to sell the property to the applicant and then the applicant wishes to join those -- that parcel with the parcel that's mentioned as the site on the overhead so he can create a focal point or an access point off of Road 68. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN POLK: Any further questions from staff? Or for staff? COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN POLK: So with that, we'll move on to the public hearing portion of this application, and call the ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 135 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 applicant forward to present any -- their request in any specific information. Are they here tonight? Please state your name and address for the record. MR. LYBBERT: Scott Lybbert, 4307 South Olsen, Kennewick. So we appreciate you considering this application. We've had lengthy discussions. I've actually approached this property previously as well to look at it for single-family homes. That was our initial approach. Probably a year, year and a half ago I looked at it and concluded with the extensive cost to put a sewer system in and then the number of homes you can get for the amount of road and the other installation, the economics, there is just no economics that work. So we backed away and took another look at it here last fall as a multi -family project if we could get the zone changed. We understand the anxiety about change in the neighborhood and we're sensitive to that. There's a number of pictures floating around of what we're proposing, and I would suggest that, you know, there's a lot of work to be done to decide what we're proposing. We gave a few pictures to the City as we were discussing the kind of concept we have. But we've got hardened off on what the product will look like. You know, it's our intention to build an attractive product to enhance the ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 136 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 neighborhood. And we think we would do that. The other issue, however, is we're trying to provide housing at a price point that the market demands. And that suggests that we try to keep the prices, you know, in the sub 200 range and, hence, town homes. And town homes make sense. So we can deliver something that people want. And some of these will be, you know, they can own their own town home is what we're considering at this point. I do want to clarify that while we are in negotiations and discussions on the Thorn property, we do not have that acquired. And it's a possibility we will not get it acquired. But our preference has been to try to match up with Valley View so we have a great entrance coming off of Road 68 with some modifications, 68 which the City has discussed with us about a turn lane and acceleration lane, those kind of things, you know, we understand we would need to do if we are bringing the project out that direction. If not, I'd like to point out that if we come down Aintree, there will be fewer numbers, it would be in the possibly 40 town homes, probably be the high side, if we don't have the Thorn property. But as you come into the subdivision, other than the one home on the corner, we're not passing any -- our traffic doesn't pass single-family homes. It's passing commercial on the west side and ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 137 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 M multi -family on the east side. And we think, you know, that should be considered as that application is being looked at. You know, I'd like the opportunity to, possibly when we're done, after we've heard from everybody, to maybe make additional comments if that is a possibility. But for now that's really all I have. CHAIRMAN POLK: Yeah, we'll have you stay close so that you can come up to answer any questions. MR. LYBBERT: I'll just be right close. CHAIRMAN POLK: I do have a question for you, first. You said that you're currently in talks to purchase the land in between the site we're talking about and Road 68, but it is the next application to annex that area; is that -- MR. LYBBERT: Yes, they have agreed, you know, pending our -- we don't know if it will sort out with them, but on hope -- on the anticipation that we will, they're asking for annexation. They think it's probably a net plus for them, and so they've decided to move ahead on that. CHAIRMAN POLK: Okay. Thank you very much. All right. So just by quick raise of hands, how many people are here regarding this issue tonight? (Audience members indicated). ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 138 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 CHAIRMAN POLK: Okay. So because we have so many, I know we do have one person who will be coming up to give a presentation as a representative for several people; is that correct? MS. KARLBERG: (Nodded head.) CHAIRMAN POLK: So we'll give you some extra time, but I want to ask that we limit the first go around to three minutes each. If we need to give more time after the presentation and after everybody has gotten through, we can discuss that, but none of us want to be here forever tonight. So with that, let's see, we have Ms. Karlberg. If you can, please give us your name and address but then also, if you can, let us know who you are representing tonight. MS. KARLBERG: My name is Kalyn Karlberg. I'm a resident of 3614 Aintree Drive in Pasco, and my property is directly adjacent to the property in question. I'm representing -- show of hands of people (indicated) -- so as homeowners -- so hopefully this will go a little quicker than we thought. And, pardon me, I have not had public speaking in a number of years, I'm a little nervous so I will try and make this very clear. First of all, we understand that there are five requirements that must be met for the rezoning, and we ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 139 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 argue that not all the requirements have been met. The conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or rezoning is change to the current R-1 zoning will substantially change the nature and character of the development directly adjacent to the property in proposal. While there are apartments located in Chapel Hill development, they are north of the property in question and behind already single-family housing. So the properties here and the single family, then we don't have the apartment complex behind that. The property to -- all the surrounding areas to the property in question are all single-family development. Furthermore, I'm sorry, I think you have a copy of that. I wanted to show you the nature, and I know that Mr. Lybbert has said this, but from the proposal we received, we were told that the proposal on the sheet said three story tucked in parking fourplexes. And the only thing in the area that matches that is the town homes behind Wal-Mart are three story with tucked in parking. And they're fourplexes. As you can see from the picture here (witness indicated), they're fourplexes. So that was very similar to the proposal that we received. And so in this, on the left, is our house. So there's quite a substantial -- it doesn't really serve as a transitional to the area as we perceived it. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 140 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 Also, according to the Washington State Appellate Court, they've held that the proof of burden of any zoning change has to be on the proponent. And while he's -- in the application it says that it's not affordable to put single family, we've seen no cost comparison has been supplied. There is evidentiary evidence that it is not cost feasible to do single housing. We also haven't seen the evidence that they've done any other type. What about R-2. Why are we jumping from R-1 to R-3? So we'd like to see some evidence that there's been a cost comparison done that would support a substantial change which warrants the rezoning. That's to justify the canal because of the basis of the harming of public health safety and general welfare, he's mentioned traffic situations. As we all live on Road 68, we will tell you it can be a nightmare on Road 68. Our concern is this is just going to add to it. I mean, it is a situation where the city council themselves have had the corridor project and studied the traffic issues along 68, which includes the area from Chapel Hill to Argent, which this is falling right in the middle of, and we see actual -- the changing situation with the traffic warrant a denial of any changing zones until the project -- the project suggestions have been implemented, such as the extension of Chapel Hill Road to the extension of 76 to alleviate ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 141 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 some of these traffic concerns that we're all experiencing on there. Furthermore, Mr. Lybbert in his proposal doesn't ask for access to Aintree Drive, and all of us on Aintree Drive will know, we get speeding vehicles down there, they are coming around that corner, that first initial corner where he'd like to place increased parking as people are going to want to park to go visit, we're already having problems with that and we've had quite a few near misses along Aintree Drive because of the parking and people. And it's kind of -- there's a home sitting there, so as people come around with parked cars, it's hard to see the vehicles. And we've had near misses on that. So not only that, but we also believe that it could be negatively impacted our already overcrowded schools in our area. We know that McLaughlin Middle School is overcrowded to the extent that they've had to move the 6th graders back into the elementary school, but kids are still in the other outbuildings, because it's still overcrowded. And our concern about multi -family dwellings what the impact it's going to have on the schools. And, furthermore, as Mr. McDonald noted, there's already R-3 land in the Chapel Hill development. It still remains undeveloped. So my question is: Why are you trying to rezone an area to R-3 when you haven't even ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 142 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 completed the R-3 development of the land in Chapel Hill development? The effect of the zone change on the property owners. We talked property values. And I understand that that without -- it is very hard to get evidentiary evidence about property values. As I called a number of appraisals, there's only one in town that does that work. I couldn't get them here in time to do it. But one of the examples cited in the stat notes is the Columbia Villas and the Navigator Villas. They're not really similar to the proposed development that we saw from Mr. Lybbert which was more of the three-story townhouse with a tucked in, which is similar to those island and estate town houses. And I do have pictures of those to show you to compare. The Columbia Villas are one and two -store duplexes, and they're very transitional to the neighboring housing, which is very complementary. It's very -- the density, the green space, the fact that they don't have tucked in parking, there's parking right beside the duplexes, so they look very characteristic to the next door single-family housing. The Navigator Villas are also only two story and are directly adjacent to an apartment complex. They do have the single family behind them but they're not sandwiched ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 143 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 in, which would happen to portions of our single family. It will be between an apartment complex and the multi -family and sandwiched. So it's really kind of, at this point, apples and oranges. And that's same thing with the villas. They're adjacent but they don't sandwich a single-family housing in between two multi -family developments. So we say that that is not really a fair comparison. Here are the Columbia Villas (indicated). The three pictures, 1, 2, 3, as you can see, if you know anything about the Hayden Homes over there, very similar to those homes. So it would be a very -- we could see from that stuff that is a very complementary transition, these duplexes. They're one and two stories, which are single-family housing and so one and two stories so it's very complementary. The Navigator is little bit different than our transition. Not quite as a transitional but not as bad as the Valley View development. As we were told that it was going to be three story tucked in parking. So it's a little bit different. And 48 to 50 of them is what we counted up on the thing. So quite highly dense, packed, compared to the Valley View and the Navigator. Many of us are directly adjacent to the property, bought view lots. We understood that the property below us was R-1 and that there would be single family one and ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 144 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 two level. We're fine with that. I think all of us we have talked we knew that that was going to be developed. We understood it. We knew that that type of housing wouldn't wreck our entire view from our view lots. That would affect our view. So we paid a premium for our lot but we'll lose it if we end up with three story townhouses. The effect on the property owner is some of the alternatives that have come up that we suggested maybe subdividing the property. The homeowner has claimed that he's claiming increased property taxes and so he wants to sell the land. We understand Mr. Aldridge that he wants to get out, so possibly some solutions we know that he's received an offer for the entire property. They want to keep the horses on the property. They'd actually like to stable more horses into a training facility on there. Also, we were wondering if the land could be subdivided off for the land around the open space and the adjacent property owners could buy the land and have it added to their property. Or even better, is we understand that there's green space has been set aside right next to our R-3 undeveloped land. At the northern part of the Chapel Hill development is a possible land swap. Is that land being developed as R-3, because it's right next to R-3, and this becomes the green space park for the Chapel ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 145 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 Hill development as it's right near the irrigation canal, which is already used by a lot of people to walk their dogs and run and horses, it would be very complementary to the already, to the uses of the space. One other thing, we had a little bit of an issue for the staff finding of fact in condition No. 2, it claims that the site borders C-1. Actually the county land next door that they're trying to claim borders C-1, the land that we're in question, north of this property is all R-1 land. And to the east and west is either RS -20, which is single-family development, or R-1 to the east. Only to the south, and I'm sorry the picture is not very clear, the land south is different but what we look at is the dentist office down south and the fire department. And the dentist office actually really -- it's very similar to our housing development. It looks like a large single-family house. So it's really similar. It's a nice transition to the area. If the council or the commission, planning commission decides to go forward with this, we would ask that there would be some mitigation of the people, the homeowners in the area. Some of the mitigation we'd like to ask for is that the proposed duplexes similar to the Columbia Villas, which was cited in the staff notes as being the type of property that hasn't affected single-family development ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 146 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 next door. If the scope of the proposed multi -family development be similar to that of the Columbia Villas. A Mix one and two story duplexes or town homes that are similar in design to our home so that it just serves to the next transition allowing from the single family to a multi -family development. And that the height be no more than the tallest of the two stores in our neighborhood. Similar to -- this is what we would be asking for the Columbia Villa, which is very complementary to our housing area. Also, we'd ask for the dwelling -- if the dwelling are allowed to be taller, that they require a setback is extended than normal to our property line. And further, we would really like no tucked under property, that the properties be similar in design with adjacent parking garages attached to it but similar with the little driveways and everything. So, again, it's complimentary to the single-family development next door. The traffic issues is that we would request that a traffic light be installed at -- I think I put it at Vista Way. I think it's Vista View. I'm sorry. And Road 68 to allow for the ease of access into the development from Road 68. Because many of us know in the evening commute, if you're trying to go south and anybody trying to turn left without a light there, it backs it all the way up on ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 147 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 N 19 Road 68. So if there could be made sure that there's a light so that there's access into the development and then also allow them in and out access. And also we'd ask no access from Aintree Drive. And that all access be made with that light, because right now we have a lot of issues with traffic along Aintree Drive. And finally, we'd ask that, and I believe Mr. Lybbert has already indicated that 6720, which is the single-family resident, that it remain R-1 along Aintree Drive and that it remains part of our development. I thank you very much for your time. I hope I didn't take too long. CHAIRMAN POLK: No, not at all. Thank you so much. So I have a list of your concerns here, and we'll call up the applicant in a second. But I just wanted to ask you real quick when you're considering the view and the issue of three-story houses imposing on your view, I know we heard from city staff that the land actually drops. Is that considering that still? MS. KARLBERG: Yes, it is still considering that, yes. Because when I bought the property, and I understood the two kind of did the whole where would that end up on the trees and we're looking, the street, it would be quite a bit. Even if they leveled it and dropped it off, it would significantly impact the view. And the density of ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 148 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 the fourplexes, the density, you know, with the duplexes. You have some space with single-family houses but it's not quite as dense. Instead of looking at -- I moved here originally from the Washington D.C. area from a townhouse community, so I know exactly what it looks like. I lived that way for 13 years, and didn't want to move to another one. CHAIRMAN POLK: Okay. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN POLK: It can be a little bit intimidating to speak in public. That deserves applause. I understand that. So let's call up our applicant. Oh, I'm sorry, one second. Does anybody else want to speak on this issue that she didn't speak for? Come on up. Name and address for the record. MR. RICHARDS: David Richards, Clarkston, Washington, but I own property in the Chapel Hill development there. A couple points I'd like to make is Aintree is the primary entrance into the whole Chapel Hill development division two. While there is access off Saratoga, your primary traffic pattern is, in fact, off Aintree. And one of my concerns would be that it's kind of like a subdivision that has the little rock pillars at the front, it sets a tone for the subdivision. Well, my concern is ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 149 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 while the other homeowners, you know, further to the east may not have the potential town homes looking over their proverbial shoulders, you can still have a perceived negative impact on that. And if you look at the elevations of The Crossings there and the proposed site there, if you're having construction that's already up here (witness indicated) and then you're adding some other apartments that are up there as well, you're now psychologically, emotionally going into this, kind of this wall. If there was another road or two of the development, there would be a little more spacial relation distance. But with the nature of the two apartment complexes, that's my concern there. And to echo what she said, there is still some multi -family available. I do know down in Chapel Hill Boulevard, I know also that the State of Washington also rezoned. I believe it was a 50 -acre piece. MR. MCDONALD: Twenty-seven. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, 27 -acre piece along the freeway there. And I've done some development in Pasco, so I can understand where the developer is coming from. I just -- I don't know that this is the right thing for that site. I also would encourage an R-2, which I believe would be a better development that would fit there. And real quick onto the traffic aspect, as Dave said, ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 150 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 there is less trips per unit for an apartment complex than there is a single family, but you have to look at the net gain. There are 40 units there with 6.2 trips per day. That's going to account to 245 traffic trips. If you look at -- if you were to look at 15 single-family homes with ten trips, that's still only 150. While it's more per resident, the net volume is going to be less due to the density there. So the density would increase approximately 65 percent by nature of having an R-3 versus an R-1. R-2 might be comparable there. The other question I had is resale, Dave, on the other multi -family. Is there -- you had indicated that the adjacent properties had an increase in property value. Can you speak to, was that resale value or was that assessed value? MR. MCDONALD: No, that's just assessed value. MR. RICHARDS: So it was the accessed values not necessarily based on resale. The other question I would have is while the assessed values did increase, I think everybody in Pasco had an increase in property values, for the most part, in West Pasco. The question I would have was, whether the resale was commensurate to -- I'm sorry, the assessed value was commensurate in increase to areas that were not adjacent to multi -family. So the houses right next to the ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 151 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 multi -family, you had indicated had increased maybe 5,400 in value. So, yes, there was an increase, but was the increase equal to maybe four or five or six streets over or did they have a higher increase than assessed value? MR. MCDONALD: That I can't totally answer because I just checked the ones that were right up against the higher density. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Other than that, I applaud -- she did a good job and I agreed with her mitigation suggestions there. I don't know how you come up with the park. The land swap. Great idea. But I don't know how you do it. CHAIRMAN POLK: All right. Thank you. Anyone else? MR. MCONDALD: Before she gets up, I need to correct what I said earlier. It wasn't 27 acres, it was 37 acres in the DNR property over by Road 84. CHAIRMAN POLK: Okay. MS. WRIGHT: Hi. My name is Sally Wright. I live on 6412 Pimlico Drive. I'm also a teacher here in the school district. And I wanted to point out that along this way right here in Aintree buses -- MS. SHANKS: Can you speak into the microphone. We have a court reporter. MS. WRIGHT: I would like to point out that along ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 152 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 Aintree Drive there, there are buses in the morning, so it's highly congested in the morning. And then when it snows, the roads are not plowed and it becomes quite dangerous. And I'd also like to point out that there are a lot of small children in that area. These are single-family homes. There are a lot of children already. And that does increase the danger for people, the extra driving that comes through there. And then I'd also like to point out that the high schools, besides the elementary and the middle schools, are already overcrowded. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN POLK: Thank you. Anyone -- would anybody else like to speak? Name and address for the record. MS. PRASCH: Nicole Prasch, 6312 Turf Paradise. So even though my house is not totally adjacent, we also paid extra for the view and this would impede on our view. And the difference in character is disturbing to us as well, even that far away from the development. Also I wanted to also say that on this Aintree access, especially on this curb, there's only parking on that corner, and this is a narrow street. It's not a wide street. And it gets too much traffic as it is. And 68 is also getting ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 153 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 very high traffic and it's only increasing, and one of the reasons we bought on this side of the highway was for the lower amount of traffic. We didn't want to get anywhere near up there by Burden and Wal-Mart and that area because it is a nightmare up there. And I think until those traffic issues can be solved, I think that this is a poor place to put dense housing, especially with other areas so close by that could have that same density that they're looking for. CHAIRMAN POLK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Could you clarify a little bit for me, please. You say you paid extra for the view. Maybe I misunderstood. MS. PASCH: So our home is located on Turf Paradise, and the houses behind us are Pimlico, they are so low down that all we see is the top of their roofs for our view. So, yes, we paid extra for our view on our home. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Paid who? MS. PASCH: When we purchased the house. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Okay. Thank you. MR. DAHLMAN: Hi, I'm Jeff Dahlman, and I live at 6619 Aintree Drive, one of those homes that's just opposite the property there. My neighbor, Tom and I, our homes are just -- our backyard is bordering the apartments behind Vista on Chapel Hill. And so to put some more ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 154 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 apartments in front us would basically mean, like the gentleman said earlier, we're living in a corridor, we have apartments behind us, and instead of a view of Horse Heaven Hills and the treeline there, we just have those new apartments. So I really don't care, Mr. McDonald, what you said about traffic and property taxes, Mr. Lybbert, it sounds like some good ideas but I really don't care what you have to say about the business venture. It's just the idea that when you buy a home, our's was new, just the idea of you bought into your property and the setting and the area and just not something I want to see changed. Also, we've got -- there's a family-owned contractor that built our home and my neighbor's home, and they've got five other lots, two on Aintree. He couldn't be here -- Robert Gray with the United Builders and his son, his father Ron Gray -- Ron is getting cancer treatment -- they asked me to speak on their behalf. And they just said as that build a couple more home, that's their livelihood there, they would like to keep the same roof line and keep their same business plan going. They can't do that now. They have one home started on Aintree, but they'd like to continue that. But that's going to change their plans and their business since -- in that same area as well. So, thank you. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 155 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 CHAIRMAN POLK: Thank you. And would anybody else like to speak about this? MR. BURN: Good evening. My name is John Burn. I'm operations manager for Franklin County Irrigation District. CHAIRMAN POLK: And your address? MR. BURN: 4320 Road 111. CHAIRMAN POLK: Thank you. MR. BURN: I'd like to give you a little history on this property as far as the irrigation district is concerned. A few years ago before a lot of this was developed out, the owner of that property came to the district to receive irrigation water. If this property developed, it will still be in the irrigation district. We do not have the vehicle at this time to let anyone out of the district. Since it lies above the canal, and on the uphill side of the canal, there would have to be a pumping station put in this. So there's some noise issues that may come up. The district itself is neither in favor or opposed to how this works. I'm just trying to give you a little background on as far as irrigation district is concerned. At some point in time, we hope to have this whole canal plaqued and put underground. So, you know, it's -- if the irrigation district puts in the pumping station, ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 156 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 this property would be assessed in different rates than what it is now as far as maintenance costs and all of those things over where programs Mr. Lybbert has will all be under the single ownership. But I've been talking with him trying to work out the details for sewer line crossing. I guess that's just about it. You know, there's no real reason for me being here other than to give you a little history on where the irrigation is on it. So if you have any questions for me, I'd be glad to answer them. COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: I had a question. Who's responsible to put in and pay for that pump? MR. BURN: Well, it would be up to the property owners but the irrigation district would own it in the future. COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BOWERS: And you mentioned that this -- once this irrigation system is installed it would change the property values. MR. BURN: It wouldn't change the property values. We work on assessment value. And those rates would go up from what it is currently. COMMISSIONER BOWERS: Thank you. MR. BURN: It would be changing from a gravity system to a pressurized system. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 157 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN POLK: I have a question for you. I believe the application mentioned that they're planning on bringing sewer. MR. BURN: Yes. CHAIRMAN POLK: Down under the canal. MR. BURN: Yes. CHAIRMAN POLK: But you said that you would like to eventually pipe the canal as well. Would that create any issues? MR. BURN: No. The design work that he had brought to us so far incorporates those pipes in the designs. Anything else? CHAIRMAN POLK: That's it. Thank you. MS. KARLBERG: We had the petition, I forgot to append my letter. CHAIRMAN POLK: At the end. Yes. All right. Come on up. Now, have you been sworn in? MS. CAMACHO: Yes. My name is Sarui Camacho and I live on 6709 Aintree Drive in front of the property. So, like most of the neighbors around there said, the traffic is a big thing. We live right there on the corner, so not only have I seen our neighbors try to slow down when we're trying to leave but it causes a lot things. I have a nephew who is one. We can't go out front for a long time because cars are constantly passing ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 158 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 by. What makes you think that if you guys build something like he proposed, how is that going to help the community? How is -- how are these homes going to help the environment we're living in right now? We have apartments right behind us. If you guys build a little complexes in front of us, where are we supposed to look? How are we supposed to feel pretty much safe? There's people behind US. There's people in front of us. So we're pretty much being surrounded. We're just pretty much being in a little cage. So it's like how is this going to help, not only us as like neighbors, but how is this going to help the community? It's like we've seen -- this summer actually a girl she crashed into the neighbor's bushes. Why? Because she said she dropped her soda. But in reality we all know she was texting. So how is that going to help? How is bringing more people into our community right now going to help anything? CHAIRMAN POLK: Okay. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. ROSKELLEY: Hello, David Roskelley, 2907 North 65th Place. So I live just south of the proposed site off of Argent. And I've lived in West Pasco for the last 15 years, lived in two different residences, the one I currently live in and another one on the north side of the highway. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 159 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 M I moved to the south side of the highway because of someone else had mentioned because of the traffic and the development that was taking place on the north end. And it's a little bit frustrating because it seems like in West Pasco, our method is put in as many houses as we can and then take ten years to figure out the traffic. And that's not acceptable. That's not acceptable. (Applause.) The new high school going in is a beautiful school, it should be an addition to our community, but you see the buses lined up on Argent every afternoon, every morning. They use this corridor, this Argent 68 corridor. And so we have the increased load of traffic, and that's not including, as was mentioned earlier tonight, the 188 acres approximately on the west side of 68 that we all know is going to be developed eventually. So that's going to increase our traffic load furthermore. So we have those issues. I'm opposed to it primarily because of the traffic increase and then the lack of a rapid response to solve those traffic issues. The next would be the property values. And, Mr. McDonald, I don't think comparing property values with studies that are done in New York or some other state are relevant to what we're at in West Pasco. I think that's ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 160 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 apples to oranges. The closest, if we're talking about the properties further north and those assessed values and resale values, okay, but bringing out studies that are done in other parts of the country, that makes no difference to me. And, lastly, tonight it's just frustrating. It seems like -- and I've lived in West Pasco for the last 15 years. Before that I moved from another part of the country and I and grew up in West Pasco. But it seems like we're trying to develop every little piece of dirt in West Pasco. It's frustrating. It's frustrating. We enjoy the community that we live and we enjoy our neighbors and we're -- it's not -- I don't want to sound -- it sounds very unwelcoming I imagine, but at the same time, I enjoy where I live, I like where I live. But it is a little frustrating seeing the amount of development that's being thrust upon us with very little thought to 5, 10, 15 years down the road. That's all I have to say. Thank you. (Applause.) MS. PRIETO: Hi. I don't know if you hear me. Maria Prieto. My property is adjacent to the land. CHAIRMAN POLK: Address? MS. PRIETO: 3208 Ladbroke Lane. I opened up my sliding glass door today. What I see? My concern is also ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 161 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 M the privacy. I'm a single parent and having a multi building sites right in my backyard, it's a huge concern. So I would greatly appreciate this rezoning not happening. Also, I would also like to add that these houses are not entry-level homes. And there are other subdivisions that are entry level but not this neighborhood. Also the traffic. As a parent, too, I see the traffic, and my home is at the corner of Ladbroke and Pimlico, and I see out my kitchen door, or kitchen window, and I see traffic, cars coming up, down there, up that street. So I just know with something like that it's going to increase. And, having children, that is a huge concern. Thank you. CHAIRMAN POLK: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MORFIN: My name is Josue Morfin and I live in 6302 Pimlico Drive, just a little bit further here to the east. And my biggest concern is the traffic on Aintree. The property that they said they could potentially get at one point, you know, it's not a guaranteed thing, which would make this -- I'm little -- first time. I have a picture on my phone, if you'd like to see it, I don't know how that works. The buses literally park on both sides of the street. You can have eight, ten buses running up and ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 162 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HAD down the side. So it gets to the point where you're playing hopscotch. The road is not that wide as it is. So you're having to wait for somebody to come through so you can pass. It's not a two-way street sometimes. Especially at 7:30 in the morning when I'm going to work. That's what I see. And that's -- as far as, I was doing a little reading on the comprehensive plan of Title 26 of the Pasco urban area subdivision regulations. 26.04.020, the purpose, No. 2 is to lessen congestion and promote safe and convenient travel by the public on streets and highways. Also, in your housing element chapter, under your goals and policies, H1B policy to encourage the location of medium and high density housing and locations that will avoid the need to access through lower density residential neighborhoods. Like we said, the R-3 zoning, the purpose of it is to -- is for a gradual -- it's 25.36.010, purpose, the R-2 district in the sentence will allow for a gradual increase in density from lower density residential district and provide a transition between different use areas. The R-2 is a good secondary, I think. I'm not sure exactly how that would work. But like she said, a 30 -foot drop, he mentioned a 30 -foot drop, which is a pretty steep grade there as it is. So the added risk to the public ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 163 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I safety is increased in that sense. And it just doesn't make sense to put an R-3 there in my eyes. Like they said, you only have access through Aintree and Saratoga due to the canal there. I do like the idea of -- or at least catering to those plans to pipe that stretch there dealing with the parks and rec and doing some kind of path there. I know that's been proposed in Kennewick before. That would be really nice to see. If you could do a land swap, I know Hansen Park, the Ridge at Hansen Park in Kennewick with the school district did a land swap there. So I know there's a way. I'm not sure the intricacies of all of that. What went on there. But it seems like it's possible. And that would make that a nice transition to do there. Or if there's some type of traffic study, you know, can we get some concrete numbers on these two stretches on the access? You know, I'm not sure putting a stoplight there would be feasible. Stoplights, I don't know if 100, $200,000, I'm not sure on the numbers, but that might kill the project from the get -go. Creating a long strip to access, you know, you're doing all kinds of road improvements, that could potentially, you know, cause some hardship on the developer and would also kill the project, I think. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 164 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 But as a parent of two, you know, and being a downhill area, the cars speed through here. You know, it's just gravity, you know. Gravity doesn't work. With that said, the recent ice storm we had I was trying to come up the side street and I literally got stuck. I couldn't move. I had to reverse and go down Saratoga. So the added safety factor on that is a big deal. I don't think the road is wide enough. It's just -- it's not -- your policy H1A is that the medium and high density housing should be located near arterials and neighborhood or community shopping facilities and void areas. So they can't guarantee this land, it's not an arterial street. It's going to be a local access street which goes against your whole comprehensive plan. So I believe we should just rezone it to something else, you know, a park. Anything else. I'm not a developer. But anything but an R-3. Thank you. CHAIRMAN POLK: Thank you. (Applause.) MS. WEIS: I know it's getting late but I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN POLK: I just want to ask real quick, did you get sworn in? MS. WEIS: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN POLK: Name and address for the record. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 165 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. WEIS: Karen Weis, 6920 Valley View Place. I live right under the word "valley" there. And so from 7:00 to 9:00 in the morning and about 3 o'clock to about 6:00 -- I happen to work at Chiawana, and when I come home, I come down Argent and go up 68, and I feel really bad for the cars behind me because I put on my blinker and have to sit there for the traffic, and it backs all the way up to Argent. That's a huge issue for if they did put a street or extend Valley View and got that piece of land and went not Aintree but through Valley, extended Valley View, that traffic is just going to be even worse. And I never thought of a problem of getting off Valley View, but during the school hours, you can't even get flow into traffic, you have to really try hard to get in there. The other thing is that since the high school is so close, and this does bother me, a lot of high schoolers are walking up and down Road 68 when they should be in school. But track teams use the -- use that area, the irrigation canal road to practice and jog and run. A lot of people walking on Road 68. So the traffic is what I would really like to point out is the issue for if the site proposal did include Valley View to go across. So that's my only issue, No. 1 issue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN POLK: Thank you. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 166 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 (Applause.) CHAIRMAN POLK: Anybody else? Okay. So I'll call the applicant back up now. Thank you for your patience. And so it sounds like we have a number of concerns about both Aintree access and Road 68. The height of the homes and the transition. So if you speak to those four things first that would be great. MR. COLE: Hello, my name is Bryan Cole, an engineer for the project for Scott. My address is, my office address 7601 West Clearwater Avenue, Kennewick, Washington. Just wanted to address a couple things as we're moving through. On the rezone, this will bring this property in conformance with the comp plan, is one of the important factors we have looking in front of us. And then the other is that we definitely want to design and develop something that's in tune with the surrounding community. The next piece that was brought up that was really the traffic component on Road 68. Road 68 is an important component to access to the property. We feel that if we get that access it will relieve, if not all, eliminate a lot of the access to off of Aintree. So it's really important. As part of that we will be required to do a ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 167 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 traffic study. We know preliminary with that traffic study that those improvements will be required to make the access safe off of there. And also continue to flow of traffic. Preliminary studies show that we will have to put a turn pocket in on Road 68, allowing for left-hand turns into the property. We will have to have acceleration and deceleration lanes so that people can get going on and off without impeding traffic. In other words, stopping traffic on Road 68. And we'll also be providing sidewalks along the entire frontage that we would own or Scott would own at that point. A couple other things about site design. The current site design that was within the development package is very preliminary and we are using that for estimates and trying to get an idea of what the feel would be, what we would be looking at, and have looked at how to stair step a development down so that we are not blocking views. We realize that the people to the north and the east of us are looking for and bought those properties for views. So we'll be looking at dropping the first set of homes that would be along that property, which actually are set 35 feet back from that, about 10 feet and then another 20 feet down to make up the grade to accommodate that. So we will be working to, again, maintain views on that ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 168 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 property, within the property. And along with that is the part of the building that, as we've been talking, we have not -- we're just really in the rezone process, we haven't invested a lot of time in architectural development of the community. And one of the things that we'll be looking at is the architectural style that fits in the community but also how the masking works so that we can continue to maintain views out to the south and to the west. The other thing I had, I wanted to mention as part of the development one of the things that happens when you do multi -family development is that with more density we will be providing additional funding as required for school fees and road impact fees. So there isn't -- it allows us to give actually the community more funds back to support the development. And, let's see, there was a question about Aintree access and the views. We feel that with leaving the existing family residential there, which picks up the majority of the frontage of the property there, and the road that would come off of Aintree to access this side dropping down in elevation not only will we provide a unique and attractive entrance point at that point but as the property does drop down, the buildings that are being evaluated for those areas actually are stepping down also. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 169 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So the intent is to maintain that neighborhood character but not putting single or multi -family property right up on the front of it to detract from that and the existing feel and the character. Again, this is a real preliminary concept that was provided in the package. One thing that we've evaluated as far as tuck -in parking is that's not necessarily something that we have to do or would like to push forward to. So we actually have a couple of other ideas but we're trying to do with the tuck -in parking is actually provide some level of garage and provide less parking areas, I guess, for guests, so that you can actually have your tuck -in parking plus a driveway access to allow for your guests to be parked there without having to provide additional, say, parking, small parking lots or additional parking on the streets. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: I just had a question. A while ago someone said about costs comparison evidence between single family versus multi -family. Have you done that or is that something that maybe you could consider doing? I don't know. MR. LYBBERT: Well, as we were determining whether we were going to take another look at this parcel, we had gone through the single family analysis year, year and a half ago, and our costs of development. We have to ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 170 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 acquire the property, too. And there is one silent -- there's one person that's not being represented here. And that's the property owner. You know, everybody has been pretty cavalier about what to do with the property. Well, the seller would like to get some value. Now, if he were to provide it to me for free, I can develop this as single-family home lots. But that's really the issue. By the time we acquire the property, and it's reasonably priced, it's not -- and apply the costs as we see them, the costs develop is greater, near or greater than the market. So there's no margin for anybody to develop. So when we went to the multi -family, we could see that there is enough margin built in and we could pay Mr. Aldridge for the property and get it, you know, a reasonable return back for the developer. Frankly, not as good as we would like under normal circumstances. But we think this is unique. We would add to the neighborhood. We don't think we're going to detract. I appreciate the comments and we're sensitive to the neighborhood. Nobody wants change. Everybody wants a green field across the street. But we all -- all of our homes are sitting on somebody's former green field. So that's why we have a rule-based process here and we're trying to conform with that. And that's our full intention. We intend to be good development. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 171 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 Now, we discussed land swaps and other things, you know, those are pretty esoteric. There's really nothing there to consider. It sounds like it would be great. But I don't know what that means in real terms. COMMISSIONER BOWERS: So thank you for your responses. Someone had proposed R-2. Is that something you would consider? MR. LYBBERT: No. We haven't. The density we felt like we needed to make the economics work. We only looked at the R-3. CHAIRMAN POLK: All right. Anymore questions from the commission? MR. MENDEZ: Yeah, I just want to clarify. Are we still talking about three-story duplexes with tucked in parking? Are you willing to mitigate that? MR. LYBBERT: I'm not going to say we're not and I'm not going say we're going to because it's very preliminary. I mean, there's resistance. Everybody in the society now doesn't like to climb stairs. We hear that. In some markets where I develop three story products it's at great demand. We have some concerns that in this market nobody wants a three story product. We don't know yet. So we're to build the product that will attract buyers. And that will have two implications. One will be the design or maybe some -- whether it's two or ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 172 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 three story. And the other thing will be does it fit with the community. People are not going to want to buy something that's a sore thumb and that isn't attractive, and so we need to build to that expectation. So that we have buyers. But I can't -- I don't want to give testimony and say this is exactly what we're doing because it's too preliminary. We're too early in that. MR. MENDEZ: My second question is: Are you going after first-time home buyers or more upper scale? MR. LYBBERT: These will be -- will there be first-time home buyers? Possibly. Yes. And, you know, it was indicated that this isn't a home -- a first home buyer neighborhood. But who are we to say what's a first home buyer neighborhood? I mean, we all -- we like -- we like a mix of economic levels amongst our people that we live with. At least, we should be trying for that. And if they're first-time home buyers with second or third time home buyers, that's not all bad. So, yeah, very well could be first-time home buyers. COMMISSIONER MENDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN POLK: All right. Any other questions? MR. LYBBERT: So one other comment, if I may. It was suggested one of the proposals was acquiring the property. And I'm prepared to entertain, if anybody here would like to step up and purchase four and a half acres for ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 173 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 $250,000, it's available, and I'll work with you. If you want to split it up and attach it to your current homes, you want to buy it and develop a part, I have no trouble with that. But -- and the offer stands. Contact me. Let me know what you want to do. And we would be open to that. It would help us recover our costs. Mr. Aldridge, what he needs, and they can have their green field, if they'd like. And I'm fully willing to embrace that. CHAIRMAN POLK: All right. Thank you. MS. KARLBERG: May I have a point of clarification? My understanding is that Mr. Aldridge's home is on the market for $389,000. Are they assessing that the house is only worth $130,000? MR. LYBBERT: Well, I said I'm going to recover my costs. I've spent quite a bit of money. I'm not saying what it's worth. CHAIRMAN POLK: Wait one second. We can't have back and forth. So you've asked a question. Feel free to come back up and respond to that, but we need you guys on the record so that the microphones can hear you. MR. LYBBERT: Frankly, the offer to sell is at $250,000. And come talk to me. CHAIRMAN POLK: Okay. Thanks. So does anybody else? Okay. So let's make our return quick, real brief. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 174 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 MS. WRIGHT: Sally Wright. So the question was, I heard the gentleman from irrigation district say that if this were to go in, they would need to change to a gravity pump system to a pressurized system. And then he indicated the rates would increase in that area, so that would increase, my question is, would that in increase for all the residential homes as well? So would that put our irrigation system rates up as well as the surrounding? Thank you. CHAIRMAN POLK: We'll call our irrigation expert. MR. LYBBERT: I want to respond to John as well, if I may. MR. BURN: At this time, this is the only property that's within the district boundaries. The rest of this property is served by the City of Pasco's irrigation system. So it wouldn't affect -- our rates wouldn't affect anything on the rest of the properties. CHAIRMAN POLK: All right. Thank you. MR. LYBBERT: It was mentioned also that there would be pump noise. And I meant to address that earlier. There is already two irrigation pumps on the canal right at the corner of the hash right where you're going north on the parcel. There's already a pump there and there is one, I guess, back just a little ways back. Whatever we put in will not be larger, so the noise will not increase ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 175 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 011 from what it currently is. And I would assume that any buildings we construct would help shield that noise from the rest of the community. But, you know, our residents aren't going to want a load pump either, so we would have it protected so noise will not be a concern. All right. CHAIRMAN POLK: All right. Thank you. All right. Is anybody else -- going once. Come on up. MS. KARLBERG: Kalyn Karlberg again. I forgot to submit the petition that there's 61 homeowners. CHAIRMAN POLK: You can hand that to the clerk. MS. KARLBERG: All right. CHAIRMAN POLK: Come on up. Real brief. MR. RICHARDS: Dave Richards, Clarkston, Washington. I own property in this subdivision. I actually work with the developer and some of the builders that build the homes in there. They were required to be built to a little higher standard. You could get the same square footage as these houses for less somewhere else in Pasco. But they paid more because they were built to a little higher standard. There are restrictions in that subdivision. They're not allowed to have anything other than seamless fiber board siding or stucco. They have to have boxed soffits. So there's different requirements that were on the subdivision that the homeowners have paid for, whether it ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 176 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 is their first home or another home. And the homes do have views, which is unique in terms of most of the subdivisions currently in development or have been developed in the past maybe five years. So I would also say in terms of mitigation, I would encourage that if there was multi -family, if you do decide to do multi -family that you would also consider requiring seamless fiber board, stucco, something that truly is, you know, congruent with what's in the neighborhood, because vinyl siding, T1-11 siding will detract from the homes. Thanks. CHAIRMAN POLK: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN POLK: Name and address for the record again. MS. PRASCH: Nicole Prasch, 6312 Turf Paradise. I just have a question. Why are we considering special changes for one resident with his home on the market, especially if he's already had other offers for the property? CHAIRMAN POLK: He has the right. Yeah, I think it's the matter that he has the right to request -- MR. PASCH: Is it the owner that's requested it or the developer? CHAIRMAN POLK: I believe the -- ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 177 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 M MR. MCDONALD: The developer was the applicant. The owner was required to sign the application. So together they're applying for the rezone. MS. PASCH: So if his house is not for sale, this wouldn't be considered? MR. MCDONALD: We have no idea. MR. PASCH: It sounds to me like we're doing a special deal for one person. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN POLK: All right. Anybody else? Going once. Going twice. Okay. So the public hearing is closed. So we'll turn it to Commissioners. Do you have any further questions for city staff or if we want to discuss this before we talk about the motion -- and I wanted to ask city staff to clarify. It looks like we have a motion for findings of fact and for a recommendation tonight. MR. MCDONALD: Yes. But you do have the option, there's an awful lot of information that was provided this evening. And if we're going down the concomitant agreement path to incorporate as many of the items that the audience suggested, like the siding, additional landscaping, additional buffers, you mentioned fencing, we're not prepared to do that this evening. So it may be advisable to come back next month and let us work on some ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 178 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 of those things and then deliberate properly in February. COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Dave, I've got a question for you. Can you make it clear for the audience' sake, they kept talking about a land swap with Kennewick School District, with -- I understand how that works. Can you explain it to our audience to understand you can't just property swap? MR. MCDONALD: Yeah, I wasn't sure what they were talking about. But I thought it might involve the city park property up on Chapel Hill Boulevard. And swapping the two, and that's not going to be in the cards. The site would be too difficult to develop for neighborhood park because of the topography and the access. It took us a while to obtain that five -acre site up there on Chapel Hill and I don't see it being swapped. COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN POLK: And can you remind me what the square footage for an R-2 is? I know it says in our package here that R-1 is 7,200 square feet per unit. MR. MCDONALD: Yes, per unit. And the R-2, it's 3,000 square feet per unit. CHAIRMAN POLK: And R-3 is? MR. MCDONALD: R-3 -- R-3 is 3,000. And the R-2, you would need 5,000 square feet per unit. CHAIRMAN POLK: So I thought in our packet it says ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 179 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that the applicant is looking at -- let me see if I can find that. Yes. It -- so it's on Page 2 here, it says, one dwelling unit per 3,000 for R-3, the developer is planning on providing about 5,019 square feet of land per dwelling. MR. MCDONALD: Yeah, that was with his 47 units that is shown on that drawing. It drops it down to 40, then that would -- you would have more square footage per unit. CHAIRMAN POLK: So you feasibly could work with an R-2? MR. MCDONALD: I don't think so, no. CHAIRMAN POLK: All right. So, Commissioners, let's talk about how you're feeling about adding a concomitant agreement or postponing a recommendation, making a recommendation now. Will that affect -- should we motion for the findings of fact now or should we -- MR. MCDONALD: No. No, you shouldn't do any of that. If you're going down the concomitant agreement route, there's too many details that have to be put into that that we can't do it here this evening. CHAIRMAN POLK: Okay. Okay. MR. MCDONALD: And so there's no need for findings of fact. You would need just a simple motion to close the hearing and then schedule deliberations for next month. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 180 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 CHAIRMAN POLK: I'm in support of doing what Dave just recommended. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Yes, me too. COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Question for you, Dave. I know it's important to get the sewer underneath in a timely manner because of the water coming in. Can we table it but allow -- until next month -- and allow them to go ahead with special permission? MR. MCDONALD: No. If this finding goes through the process, and then it's denied or it's changed such that it doesn't make financial feasibility, there's no sense in having a sewer stub under the -- if you can't recoup his costs, the process has to be played out. COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Okay. Well, then I would be willing to go ahead and deliberate now and put this stuff out... CHAIRMAN POLK: So we have one vote for continuing, one vote for deliberating now. How are you feeling about this, Commissioner Mendez? COMMISSIONER MENDEZ: I think the concomitant agreement would be a way to mitigate some of the issues that we have heard tonight. I'm not saying that I would be in favor of it. But something to consider. So influence is toward that. CHAIRMAN POLK: Okay. Commissioner Portugal? ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 181 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Yes. I agree with that, too. I'd like to add, though, that I was still waiting for -- I guess I go back to the cost comparison evidence about single family and multi -family. And I asked the question and I thought that maybe we can -- I would feel more comfortable so that the folks know what is the evidence of that comparison. CHAIRMAN POLK: So do we know if we have any engineered estimates for the sewer? MR. MCDONALD: We do not. The City does not. I know Hayden Homes did, working through their engineer HDJ. But we don't have that available to us. CHAIRMAN POLK: Okay. So I would also be in favor of a concomitant agreement. So it looks like we're at a vote of 4 to 1 to extend for another month and work on a concomitant agreement that might, as Commissioner Mendez said, mitigate some of these issues. MR. MCDONALD: So we just need a simple motion then to. CHAIRMAN POLK: Okay. You don't need anymore information from us regarding -- MR. MCDONALD: Well, we've heard a lot from the audience and we'll take a look at preparing a contaminant agreement trying to incorporate some of the items that were discussed and mentioned from the bench. And then you ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 182 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 can deliberate and add or subtract as you see fit. CHAIRMAN POLK: Okay. All right. Thank you. So I would entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER BOWERS: I propose that we extend -- we close the public hearing and we -- MR. MCDONALD: And schedule the next regular meeting to deliberate the issues -- in February to deliberate the issue. COMMISSIONER BOWERS: In February to deliberate the issue. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: I second that. All right. CHAIRMAN POLK: All of those in favor? (Ayes.) CHAIRMAN POLK: All of those opposed? COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Nay. CHAIRMAN POLK: So let the record show it was moved by Commissioner Bowers, seconded by Commissioner Portugal and passed with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. And so this now will come back to us next month with a little more detail. MR. MCDONALD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN POLK: Okay. All right. So... before we move on to the next issue, I'll go ahead and call a three-minute recess, LET people stretch their legs or dismiss if they would like to leave. Thank you so much. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 183 of 336 1 2 3 m 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (CONCLUDED AT 8:49 P.M.) ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 62 Page 184 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS. COUNTY OF FRANKLIN ) This is to certify that I, ChaRae Kent, the undersigned Washington Certified Court Reporter, residing at Pasco, reported the within and foregoing public meeting on the date herein set forth; that said public meeting was taken by me in shorthand and thereafter under my direction transcribed, and that same is a true and correct record of the meeting to the best of my ability. I further certify that I am not a relative or employee or attorney or counsel of any the parties, nor am I financially interested in the outcome of the cause. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Washington State CCR number this day of , 2016. CHARAE KENT, RPR, CCR CCR NO. 2408 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR KENT REPORTING * (509) 627-2244 Page 185 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF PASCO In Re: Rezone from R-1, ) To R-3, ) Scott Lybbert ) Master File # Z 2015-006 EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TIME: 7:00 p.m., Thursday, February 18, 2016 TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall Pasco, Washington CALLED BY: City of Pasco REPORTED BY: Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 186 of 336 1 2 3 N 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 APPEARANCES FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN JOE CRUZ COMMISSIONER TANYA BOWERS COMMISSIONER PAUL MENDEZ COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY COMMISSIONER LOREN POLK COMMISSIONER ZAHRA KHAN COMMISSIONER GABRIEL PORTUGAL ALSO PRESENT: MR. RICK WHITE MR. DAVID MCDONALD MS. KRYSTLE SHANKS Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 187 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:00 p.m., at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the Pasco Planning Commission Meeting was taken before Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II of the Community & Economic Development Department for the City of Pasco. The following proceedings took place: PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Item number 5A, is a rezone, Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential), applicant is Mr. Scott Lybbert, Master File Number Z 2015-006. Mr. McDonald? MR. MCDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commission Members. Just as a reminder the next four items are from the public hearing of last month so on these items the Planning Commission will only deliberate. There will not be additional testimony taken from the audience. On this particular case, the application by Mr. Lybbert, there was considerable discussion at the public hearing. We received testimony from neighbors with concerns relative to the proposed rezone from R-1 to R-3. And a number of suggestions were made by adjoining property owners that would perhaps mitigate some of their concerns and Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 188 of 336 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 W staff indicated at the public hearing that we would come back with a concomitant agreement for your consideration and deliberation this evening before you develop a recommendation to the City Council. First off, one of the suggestions that was made by one of the neighbors that if this was to be rezoned to R-3, why couldn't the house be left out that's on the north end of the site and have that remain R-1. So, with that thought in mind we've prepared the proposed ordinance the way the legal description was written it would rezone the site R-3 but it excludes the northern 110' of the property so that portion would remain R-1. So along Aintree Drive there would be a buffer so to speak of single-family residential. That would prohibit the house from ever being converted into a duplex or being removed and being replaced with a duplex or triplex. And attached to that proposed ordinance is a concomitant agreement that lists on page 2 of the concomitant agreement a set of conditions that would apply to this rezone. And a concomitant agreement as you know is something that is actually recorded in the courthouse along with the ordinance and runs with the land and it's binding on any heirs or future owners of the land. So once these are recorded they cannot be removed unless the City Council or Planning Commission goes through the public hearing process again and a new application is held and in that case the neighbors would be notified again. Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 189 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 5 So just quickly to go through the proposed conditions, the first one, number A, states that only townhouse style attached homes with customary accessory structures would be permitted. We define town home/town house style as a building containing four or fewer units so it would allow fourplexes, triplexes and duplexes. They could mix in there. There's concern over views and heights of the proposed buildings so on item B, we've limited the height limitation to exactly the same height standards that you'll find in the subdivision to the north and to the east for the R-1 zoning and that's 25'. Now within our zoning regulations there's a little quirk that individuals that would want to have a higher height, they could apply for a special permit. You don't see that very often but we've put language in there to prohibit anyone from coming back and applying for a special permit to go to 35' or 45'. Building design, we heard some concerns about making attractive buildings and we've got a couple of statements in there about that. No metal siding, no vinyl siding. Neighbors wanted a construction material similar to their homes next door so that would include cement fiberboard siding, stucco, brick, architectural stone and similar type materials. All soffits would have to be boxed. We are recommending along northerly and easterly sides of the property a 15' landscape buffer be included with a spacing of trees and the overall site itself should have at least two trees planted for each Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 190 of 336 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 X dwelling unit. And then we are recommending that a set of covenants and restrictions be attached to this property so there will be an association that would be responsible for maintenance of the site and the landscaping. And lastly, to ensure that there is no light spillage from this property onto the adjoining properties there should be shielding of any outdoor lighting that would be in place. So I believe most of those items capture concerns with the neighbors and it's up to you folks now to deliberate and debate the matter. Staff is available for any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Thank you very much, Mr. McDonald. Questions on COMMISISONER POLK: I have one, well actually I have two. So the residential more dense than what they are proposing. MR. MCDONALD: Well, no. I'm starting to get confused. The property is currently zoned R-1. And you can build one dwelling unit for every 7,200 square feet. COMMISSIONER POLK: I'm asking based on the last paragraph on page 2, it says... MR. MCDONALD: Page 2 of what? Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 191 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 7 COMMISSIONER POLK: Of the actual packet, not the concomitant MR. MCDONALD: Oh, of the staff report? COMMISSIONER POLK: Yes, that is correct. See where it says, "R- 3 zoning would permit one dwelling per 3,000 square feet of land." MR. MCDONALD: That is correct. COMMISSIONER POLK: "The developer is planning on providing 5,000 square feet of land." MR. MCDONALD: That's under the proposal that he first submitted with that little drawing that you saw with the first report which isn't in this report because I said it was just kind of conceptual. That plan indicated that there would be about 5,000 square feet for each dwelling unit. COMMISSIONER POLK: I was mostly asking because it seems like we have enough conditions in the concomitant agreement that with height requirements and the townhouse style and the landscape buffer that will probably still be maintained that it will be required about that or are we looking at potential for the land to be developed with more density? MR. MCDONALD: More density? I doubt it very much because they are going to have to have driveways, roadways through the area, they will have to have parking and the buildings have to be set apart for fire safety and things like that. Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 192 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 3 COMMISSIONER POLK: Ok, I just wanted to confirm that is what we are probably going to cap out at. We're not like, with the concomitant agreement conditions, we're probably restricting the full use of the R-3 zone. MR. MCDONALD: Yeah, it's doubtful that he will be able to max it out to the 3,000. Generally the code will have these 3,000 square feet or 5,000 square feet or 7,200 and its very difficult for the whole development to meet those parameters. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: So take a look at above, adjacent to Aintree Drive and Chapel Hill. You're kind of looking at that, if you take the green space and the parking and all of the other stuff, it would be very very difficult to achieve, what Dave said. That's just a very good example with what you end up with. Commissioner Bowers? COMMISIIONER BOWERS: One of the things I remember hearing from the community was a concern that there was a huge amount of traffic on Aintree and they didn't want additional traffic to come though there given how many accidents there have been. COMMISSIONER POLK: And school buses too I think. There was some concern about that. MR. MCDONALD: Yeah, there was. Some people complained about the narrowness of the road. That's a standard city street built at, there's 40' of improvement there just like any other street in town. I think Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 193 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I part of the problem is the curve I suppose. They have access to Aintree now. They can use that access. Mr. Lybbert is trying to improve the access in the neighborhood by inquiring the parcel out along Road 68 and he's still in the process of doing that. If that occurs then the main entrance will be right where the curser is and the secondary access will View. COMMISSIONER BOWERS: And if I recall, there was also a concern MR. MCDONALD: Yes, that is correct. And if Mr. Lybbert can't obtain the property along Road 68 nothing will change out there. The additional traffic from the site will go past the apartments and the Maverick Store right into the site. So it won't impact the other folks but the benefit of Mr. Lybbert purchasing the property out along Road 68 will require him to do a traffic study which will then indicate or dictate what improvements will have to be made in Road 68. In the course hearing there was mention of a turn pocket right at that intersection which would provide a left-hand turn for people getting in and out of Valley View Drive. The street would also have to be widened and there would be curb and gutter and sidewalk at least on the east side of the street. Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 194 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 COMMISSIONER BOWERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, anyone else? (No comments) Ok, I would entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: I move to adopt the finding of facts and conclusions, therefore contained in the February 18, 2016 staff report. COMMISSIONER KHAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Moved by Commissioner Greenaway, seconded by Commissioner Khan. All those in favor say "Aye". COMMISSIONERS: "Aye". CHAIRMAN CRUZ: All opposed? (No response) Let the record show the motion passed unanimously. COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: I move based on the finding of facts and conclusions as adopted by the Planning Commission, recommend to the City Council rezoning parcel 117-430-147 from R-1 to R-3 with conditions as specified in the February 18, 2016 staff report. COMMISSIONER KHAN: Second. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Moved by Commissioner Greenaway, seconded by Commissioner Khan. All those in favor say "Aye". COMMISSIONERS: "Aye". CHAIRMAN CRUZ: All opposed? Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 195 of 336 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 (No response) Let the record show the motion passed unanimously. Mr. McDonald, what happens to this one? MR. MCDONALD: This will go to the first Council meeting in March. March 7t", I believe, for the Council's consideration unless an appeal is filed and an appeal will cause a closed record hearing to be held basically a month later. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, thank you very much, Dave. Also, I want to thank everybody that showed up and provided your input because that's how those concomitant agreements get built is through a lot of that public dialogue. (CONCLUDED.) Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 196 of 336 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 12 CERTIFICATE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF FRANKLIN ) This is to certify that I, Krystle Shanks, the Administrative Assistant II for the City of Pasco, Community & Economic Development Department, residing at Pasco, reported the within and foregoing Planning Commission Meeting on the date herein set forth; that said examination was taken by me and thereafter transcribed, and that same is a true and correct record of the proceedings. I further certify that I am not a relative or attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I financially interested in the outcome of the cause. IN WITNESS WEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and this day of , 2016. Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 197 of 336 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 25, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Street Vacation: A Portion of 24th Ave. (Pasco School District) (MF # VAC 2016-003) I. REFERENCE(S): Overview Map Vicinity Map Proposed Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , a ordinance vacating a portion of 24th Avenue, and further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The School District recently submitted a street vacation petition requesting the vacation of a portion of 24th Avenue. As previously recommended, the City Council set April 4, 2016 as the date to consider the proposed vacation. V. DISCUSSION: In April of 2015, Staff provided the Council with an update on the School District's improvement plans for Stevens Middle School. The first phase of the District's plan Page 198 of 336 was completed about two years ago with the construction of a new parking lot on 22nd Avenue. The next phase of the plan involves redesigning the sports fields on the west side of the school. As explained in April of last year this work will require the vacation of 24th Avenue between Marie Street and Octave Street. Again in September of 2015, the Council reviewed the redevelopment plans and proposed street vacation for Stevens Middle School when a special permit was granted for redevelopment of the Middle School. The School District's redevelopment plan for Stevens Middle School seeks to address the safety hazard of having over 900 students crossing 24th Avenue to participate in PE activities. When the idea of vacating 24th Avenue was first discussed staff asked the School District to undertake a traffic study to assess the traffic impacts on the neighborhood that may result from closing a portion of North 24th Avenue. That traffic study indicated vacating 24th Avenue would create minimal disruption to the neighborhood. The City has a long history of vacating streets to enable the construction or reconstruction of schools. Robert Frost, Emerson, Longfellow, Marie Curie, Stevens Middle School, Captain Gray and Pasco High School are all located on property that includes vacated streets and alleys. The off site parking lot for Virgie Robinson Elementary School required the vacation of two alleys and the redevelopment of Longfellow Elementary School required the vacation of a portion of West Shoshone Street which was fully developed street. The redevelopment of Longfellow also involved the vacation and relocation of an alley. Utility lines for all the major utility companies are located within the westerly 52 feet of 24th Avenue. As a result it will be necessary to retain a 52 -foot utility easement in the vacated right-of-way. All utilities will remain in place with the exception of the overhead power, cable and or phone lines which will be placed underground. The utilities will remain under the modified sports fields much like the water line, sewer line and a storm water line located beneath the playground at Longfellow. The effective date of the vacation ordinance is June 22, 2016, the date the School District will begin their work to close the vacated portion of 24th Avenue. Page 199 of 336 . . Vicinity Item: Street Vacation - Pm. of 24th A Applicant: Pasco School District Map File #: VAC 2016-003 SITS k*1 WHEN RECORDED PLEASE RETURN TO: City of Pasco Attn: City Planner 525 North 3' Pasco, WA 99301 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF 24TH AVENUE. WHEREAS, a qualified petition has been submitted to the City Council of the City of Pasco requesting vacation of certain public rights-of-way within the City of Pasco; and WHEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the general interest of the City, the City Council may vacate rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, all steps and procedures required by law to vacate said right-of-way have been duly taken and performed; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That 24TH Avenue between the south right-of-way line of West Marie street and the north right-of-way line of West Octave Street, as depicted in Exhibit "1" be and the same is hereby vacated subject to the easement retained in Section 2 hereof. Section 2. That the City shall retain an easement and the right to exercise or grant easements with respect to the westerly 52 feet of the right-of-way vacated in Section 1 above for the construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services. Section 3. That a certified copy of this ordinance be recorded by the City Clerk of the City of Pasco in and with the office of the Auditor of Franklin County, Washington. Section 4. This ordinance shall take full force and effect on the June 22, 2016. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, this 4th day of April 2016. 1 Page 202 of 336 Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 203 of 336 Exhibit Item: Street Vacation - Ptn. of 24th Ave Applicant: Pasco School District N � File #: VAC 2016-003 MARIE ST Z//100 SITE OCTAVE ST E 60' w �C r AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 24, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 Rick Terway, Director, Admin & Comm Services FROM: Dan Dotta, Facilities Division Manager Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: City View Cemetery Regulations - Amend PMC 2.48 I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Ordinance Memo from Lee Kerr, City Attorney II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4276, amending PMC Sections 2.48.075, 2.48.150, 2.48.160 and 2.48.170 regarding regulations governing City View Cemetery and, further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: In the past, families have purchased headstones of inferior quality from vendors other than the vendors offered at City View Cemetery. These inferior headstones have greatly deteriorated over time causing maintenance problems and customer complaints about the overall character and quality of the cemetery. As time passes, families move out of the area or there are no family members left to replace the dilapidated marker. The City is not responsible for the maintenance of individual headstones, therefore, the only choice the City has is leaving the damaged marker or removing it and leaving the grave unmarked. V. DISCUSSION: Page 205 of 336 Following Council discussion at the March 14th workshop and March 21st regular meeting, the following changes and clarifications are offered: 1. Staff has confirmed the City has no exclusive agreements with any of the approved vendors. Three vendors who currently service the cemetery are: Wylie Monuments, Walla Walla; Pacific Coast Memorials, Everett; and Quiring Monuments, Seattle. These vendor have come to be selected vendors based on the quality of their products and reliability in meeting the needs of the cemetery and its patrons. One of the key factors in the cost of a headstone is freight. As each of the three vendors has established business relationships in the area, they are able to provide regular and cost effective delivery of headstones to the cemetery, which benefits both the City and families. Wylie Monuments has chosen to offer a greater discount to City View customers than it has to other cemeteries or funeral homes. This is in keeping with Wylie's business model, as they do in other communities (that is, offering one dealer a preferred discount) and is not as a result of any decision or action on the part of the City. 2. Along with the ordinance changes previously noted below, the ordinance has been modified to state that the City can and will add additional providers to it's list as long as the quality of their product meets the standards. The ordinance has also been updated to specify a 4" minimum thickness of stone to complete the listing of the minimum standard set in the PMC. Staff proposes amending PMC 2.48.075 requiring customers to purchase gravestones and monuments only from a list of approved providers supplied by City View Cemetery. These vendors offer products that have been proven over time. Language has also been added allowing staff the ability to maintain the traditional atmosphere customers have come to expect at City View Cemetery. Proposed changes to PMC 2.48.150, 2.48.160 and 2.48.170 update language to agree with "City View Cemetery Policies and Procedures" and fees set by City Manager per PMC 2.48.180 and approved by City Council on October 20, 2008. Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance. Page 206 of 336 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending Sections 2.48.075, 2.48.150, 2.48.160 and 2.48.170 of the Pasco Municipal Code regarding regulations governing City View Cemetery. WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, has determined that certain amendments to the regulations governing City View Cemetery are necessary, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 2.48.075 of the Pasco Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.48.075 MONUMENT REGULATIONS. All grave stones and monuments shall be purchased from a list of approved providers supplied by City View Cemetery. Additional vendors, whose products meet minimum standards, can be added upon request. All grave stones and monument bases shall be a minimum of 4" thick solid granite, marble, limestone, or other approved materialstone and shall be set in a foundation of concrete. No concrete or other similar material shall be permitted above ground level. All stones and monuments shall be set flush with the ground in Blocks 4, 5, 12 and 13 and in all sections of the Cemetery developed after January 1, 2000. Upright monuments will be permitted in all other blocks. With the exception of multiple part monuments installed by authorized vendors no monuments, markers or grave stones shall be placed in said cemetery except by cemetery personnel. The Cemetery is intended to be a tranquil and non-partisan place and no objectionable monuments or messages will be allowed. The facilities manager has the sole discretion to determine what would be objectionable to a reasonable person without regard to a particular viewpoint. Any appeal regarding the provisions of this section shall be directed to the City of Pasco Hearing Examiner. Section 2. That Section 2.48.150 of the Pasco Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.48.150 BURIAL CLASSIFICATION. Burials shall be classified as follows: Baby: Persons under three years of age; Juvenile: Persons from three to ten years of age, inclusive; Adult: Persons over ten years of age; Urn/Lot: Cremated remains of one individual; Urn/Grave: Cremated remains (up to twothf-ee urn burials may be allowed on individual lots designated for that purpose or Leone urn burials may be allowed in a grave with one body with the consent of the owner or guardian-,-pfovide eper Niche: Cremated remains in columbarium. Section 3. That Section 2.48.160 of the Pasco Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.48.160 BURIALS - GENERAL. All burials will be scheduled to give cemetery personnel at least one hour to transfer equipment to the subsequent burial. Saturday or Monday Page 207 of 336 morning burials will be permitted only if arrangements are made before noon on the previous Friday. In the event a burial is scheduled on Saturday and other than between eight a.m. and five p.m., Monday through Friday, a Saturday service fee will be gpplietlehafge of TWE) HuRdfed Seventy Five r,,,llafs ($275.00) in addition to all other charges shall be Y,,a . Section 4. That Section 2.48.170 of the Pasco Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.48.170 BURIALS - HOLIDAY. No interments, disinterments, removals, cremation or interment service shall be permitted on Sundays, or on any City recognized holiday; without special written permission of the City and a Sunday/Holiday service fee will be appliedehafge-of Fauf Hund -red Seventy Five r ell s ($475 .00) in addition to all other charges shall be ffia . When any of the aforementioned holidays fall or are legally observed on a Friday or Monday, burials must be arranged no later than twelve noon on the last business day preceding the holiday. Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 5 days after its passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at its regular meeting this day of 92016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 208 of 336 KERR LAW GROUP 7025 Grandridge Blvd., Suite A Kennewick, Washington 99336-7724 (509) 735-1542 MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Terway, Director Administrative & Community Services City of Pasco FROM: Leland B. Kerr Attorney -at -Law DATE: January 28, 2016 RE: Cemetery Headstone Policy RECEIVED FEB 0 3 2016 )MIN & COMM SERVICE The first question is whether a City owned and operated cemetery can, as a condition of using the cemetery's services, require their customers to purchase a headstone from the cemetery rather than allow the customer to provide their own. The answer is probably yes. RCW 68.52.030 provides that a city shall have the power "to procure and hold lands for burying grounds, and to make regulations and fence the same." Additionally, RCW 35.22.280(20) provides that any first class city shall have power "to regulate the burial of the dead, and to establish and regulate cemeteries within or without the corporate limits..." The City of Pasco, as a code city, is granted the same power. These statutes make it clear that the City can regulate the burial of the dead as they see fit, which would include conditioning the use of the City's cemetery on allowing only headstones that were purchased directly from the cemetery. There are no cases, however, to assist us in interpreting these sections. This analysis also satisfies the second question, whether the City operated cemetery can establish size, quality, and configuration restrictions to avoid poor workmanship and offensive displays. Again, it would seem that the answer is probably yes. The best practice would be for the City to offer a number of alternative headstones, each comply with the City's standard for size, quality, shape and configuration. If the City's policy permits third party produced headstones, it can regulate the size, quality, shape and configuration of the headstone or monument being provided to the customer to provide predicable quality and uniformity within the cemetery. There is, however, a question in regards to the regulation of content of the headstone's message in light of the recent Town of Gilbert case. Thereby, using the best practice as suggested above of a choice from among City provided available headstones is preferable. Page 209 of 336 Rick Terway January 28, 2016 Page 2 PMC 2.48 sets forth the ordinances that regulate City View cemetery. PMC 2.48.075 already provides that "all grave stones and monuments shall be of granite, marble, limestone, or other approved stone and shall be set in a foundation of concrete." If the City chooses either of the above options, PMC 2.48 can be amended to include language that would establish the policy of the cemetery to incorporate either of the two options discussed above. LBK/sla Page 210 of 336 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 29, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Annexation: Mullen Annexation (MF# ANX 2016-003) I. REFERENCE(S): Overview Map Vicinity Map Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation Proposed Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION:I move to approve Resolution No. , accepting a Notice of Intent to commence annexation proceedings for the Mullen Annexation Area and providing a determination on the boundary, zoning and indebtedness related thereto. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The owners of approximately 160 acres of property located east of Broadmoor Boulevard and north of Power Line Road have filed a Notice of Intent to Commence Annexation. The property is currently under agricultural production with 40 acres being owned by the School District for a future school. The Notice of Intent has been reviewed by staff, and has been determined to contain sufficient signatures to initiate the annexation process. Notices of Intent are required to contain the signatures of property owners representing at least 10 percent of the assessed value of an area proposed for annexation. In this case, the Notice of Intent contains the signatures of owners representing approximately 75 percent of the Page 211 of 336 assessed value within the proposed annexation area. The City Council set April 4, 2016 as the date for the required meeting to consider the Notice of Intent. V. DISCUSSION: As a part of the review of the Notice of Intent, the petition method of annexation requires the Council to determine: 1. Whether the City will accept or require modification of the proposed annexation area; 2. Whether the City will require simultaneous adoption of zoning; and, 3. Whether the City will require the property to assume all or a portion of existing City indebtedness. The proposed resolution has been prepared following past practices of accepting the proposed annexation area without requiring simultaneous zoning or the assumption of bonded indebtedness. Zoning will be established following property owner notification and a public hearing held (by the Planning Commission) separately from a Council hearing on the future annexation. The proposed annexation area is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary and as such it has been the City's responsibility to plan for future development on the property. As a result, the annexation area has been included in the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Water and Sewer plan service areas. Development of infrastructure on the property will be the responsibility of the developers, while the associated need for public services, such as police and fire, will be the responsibility of the City. These additional service needs could include the location of a fourth fire station and or expanded public works facilities at the corner of Road 108 and Crescent Drive. Page 212 of 336 Vicinity Item: Mullen Annexation Map Applicant: Randy Mullen N File ANX 2016-003 0Boundary0 0 CITY LIMITS` Urban Growth sxkxx\\\\\\xxs \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\�\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ IBM so Mal INN MEN NOWW ®� ®! iwhow ONE IN ®�®' �� � �� �i ids • �� C��'�i�i����� LIN • = .- �_� :-e POW .-� .e 01 il111111P. 111911t1���'� IMMIiMlil �Iilh�����=- ; '; _�!!�i`uiie"�rii►�► HaWass - - 1lilli�p AIiilift BENZ= NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEDURES TO: The City Council of the City of Pasco 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 Council Members: The undersigned, who are the owners of not less than ten percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is sought, hereby advise the City Council of the City of Pasco that it is the desire of the undersigned owners of the following area to commence annexation proceedings. The property herein referred to is described on Exhibit " 1" attached hereto and is depicted on Exhibit "2" further attached hereto. It is requested that the City Council of the City of Pasco set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request for a meeting with the undersigned to determine: (1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed annexation; and, (2) Whether the City Council will require the assumption of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed; and, (3) Whether the City Council will require simultaneous zoning. This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text material and is intended by the signers of this Notice of Intention to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. Page 215 of 336 1e plus prima yuuz mume nen aiddiftiun to sinn& NAME. ADDRESS DATE E /)6 Page 216 of 336 EXHIBIT "1" Annexation Legal Beginning at a point on the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of Section 5, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. said point being the northeast corner of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 5; Thence easterly along the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of said Section 5, and continuing easterly along the north line of the south half of the southeast quarter of said Section 5 to the intersection with the east line of said Section 5; Thence southerly along the east line of said Section 5 to the intersection with the south line of said Section 5; Thence westerly along the south line of said Section 5 to the intersection with the east right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence westerly along the westerly projection of said south line to the intersection with the west right- of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence northerly along the northerly projection of the west right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard to the intersection with the north right-of-way line of Burns Road; Thence northerly along the west right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard to the intersection with the north line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M.; Thence easterly along the easterly projection of said north line to the intersection with the east right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence easterly along the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of said Section 5, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. to the point of beginning. Page 217 of 336 EXHIBIT # 2 Mullen Annexation CITY MIT "Anne xation J /Area H U N K DR AI IE m Mo MIA V{NCCkiO ➢R P EA HE P SANDIFUR PARKWAY i I � Page 218 of 336 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE MULLEN ANNEXATION, PROVIDING A DETERMINATION ON THE BOUNDARY TO BE ANNEXED AND WHETHER SIMULTANEOUS ZONING AND THE ASSUMPTION OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS WILL BE REQUIRED. WHEREAS, the owners of property in the south half of the south half of Section 5, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM have filed a Notice of Intent to annex to the City of Pasco; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco has reviewed the Notice of Intent and has determined annexation of the territory would support the provision of municipal services within the Pasco Urban Growth Area and is in the best interest of the Pasco community; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: A) That the City will accept the proposed territory to be annexed as depicted in Exhibit "1" and described in Exhibit "2" attached hereto. B) That the territory to be annexed will not require simultaneous adoption of zoning regulations. Zoning will be determined through a public hearing process with input from affected property owners. C) That the annexation area will not be required to assume any portion of existing City bonded indebtedness. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 4th day of April, 2016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 219 of 336 EXHIBtT # I MuHen Annexation CITY LIMITS Nol Ann xation read U NORFOLK DR FAIRFIELD D D R� BUCKINGHAM DR O MIA LN VINCENZO DR MAJEBTIA LANE m SANDIFUR PARKWAY HERD Page 220 of 336 EXHIBIT "2" Annexation Legal Beginning at a point on the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of Section 5, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. said point being the northeast corner of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 5; Thence easterly along the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of said Section 5, and continuing easterly along the north line of the south half of the southeast quarter of said Section 5 to the intersection with the east line of said Section 5; Thence southerly along the east line of said Section 5 to the intersection with the south line of said Section 5; Thence westerly along the south line of said Section 5 to the intersection with the east right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence westerly along the westerly projection of said south line to the intersection with the west right- of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence northerly along the northerly projection of the west right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard to the intersection with the north right-of-way line of Burns Road; Thence northerly along the west right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard to the intersection with the north line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M.; Thence easterly along the easterly projection of said north line to the intersection with the east right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence easterly along the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of said Section 5, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. to the point of beginning. Page 221 of 336 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 22, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Jeff Adams, Associate Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Special Permit: Cooley Preschool MF# (SP 2016-002) I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Map Proposed Resolution Report to Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 2/18/2016 and 3/17/2016 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving a special permit for the location of a preschool located at 4818 W Irving Street, as recommended by the Planning Commission. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On March 17, 2016 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend the location of a preschool at 4818 W Irving Street. Following the conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned it would be appropriate to recommend the location of a preschool at 4818 W Irving Street. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. V. DISCUSSION: Page 222 of 336 Applicant is requesting to locate a Montessori Preschool in a residential zone. The preschool would operate four days per week for four hours a day and would serve up to 12 children per day. Home daycare/preschool centers serving up to 12 children are allowed in residential districts as a home occupation without a Special Permit; however home occupations require the business owner live in the home. Applicant does not wish to live in the home while offering the service. Page 223 of 336 • Item: Preschool in RS -20 Zone Vicinity • MapApplicant: John Cooley N File #. SP 2016-002 Olit A 1 f LO 1 SYLVESTER ST .. SITE; • PON&," - -Mr- 1, VINt STWM- a� 'j969' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PRESCHOOL IN AN RS -20 (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) DISTRICT. WHEREAS, John Cooley submitted an application for the location of a preschool located at 4818 W Irving Street. (Tax Parcel 119 581034); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 18, 2016 to review a special permit for the proposed preschool; and, WHEREAS, following deliberations on March 17, 2016 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the preschool with certain conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: 1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to John Cooley for a preschool in an RS - 20 (residential suburban) District under Master File # SP 2016-002 with the following conditions: a. The special permit shall apply to 4818 W Irving Street (Parcel # 119 581 034; Leeper Subdivision Lot 1) b. The hours of operation shall be limited to four (4) hours per day, not extend beyond the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; c. The number of preschool students served shall be limited to twelve (12) students per 24-hour period, as per the Special Permit application. d. Only one sign, not exceeding six (6) square feet, shall be permitted upon the property; Applicant shall secure a building permit from the City of Pasco before erecting a Sign; e. Four parking stalls shall be provided; the design /installation of the parking stalls must be approved by the City of Pasco Community & Economic Department. f. A fenced outdoor play area shall be provided to prevent unauthorized people from entering, and to prevent children from escaping and having access to hazardous areas, and otherwise comply with the requirements of WAC 170-295-2130 and WAC 170-295-5090. Page 225 of 336 g. The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business license for the additional authorized activities is not obtained by March 1, 2017. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 4th day of April, 2016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 226 of 336 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2016-002 APPLICANT: John Cooley HEARING DATE: 2/18/16 4818 W Irving Street ACTION DATE: 3/17/16 Pasco WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a preschool in an RS -20 District 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Parcel # 119 581 034: Leeper Subdivision Lot 1; General Location: 4818 W Irving Street Property Size: Approximately .54 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from W. Irving Street via Sylvester Street and Road 49 3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned RS -20 (Low - Density Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: RS -12 - Single family units SOUTH: RS -20 - Single family units EAST: RS -20 - Single family units WEST: RS -20 - Single family units S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for low-density residential uses. The Plan does not specifically address preschools, but elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other development. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. Page 227 of 336 ANALYSIS Applicant is requesting to locate a Montessori Preschool in a residential zone. The preschool would operate four days per week for four hours a day and would serve up to 12 children per day. Home daycare/ preschool centers serving up to 12 children are allowed in residential districts as a home occupation without a Special Permit; however home occupations require the business owner live in the home. Applicant does not wish to live in the home while offering the service. The site is located at the corner of and fronts Sylvester and Road 49 and faces a cul-de-sac section of Irving. Sylvester is a minor arterial street. The surrounding properties are all low-density residential, developed with single- family units. Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each employee and one space per 6 children. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS ratio of adults to children is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15 children, (see table below). WAC 170-295-2090: 2 Page 228 of 336 Then the And the If the age of Cum. Cum. the children staff to maximum Children Adults Max Max is: child ratio group Children Adults is: size is: (a) One month, through 11 1:4 8 8 2 8 2 months (infant) (b) Twelve months through 29 1:7 14 14 2 22 4 months (toddler) (c) Thirty months 1:10 20 20 2 42 6 through 5 years (preschooler) (d) Five years through 12 1:15 30 8 1 50 7 years (school- age child) 2 Page 228 of 336 Thus, with the proposed 12 children the maximum parking requirement for this site will be 1-2 stalls for employees (assuming the possibility of children under the age of 5 attending) plus 2 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for a total of 3-4 stalls. There is sufficient room on-site for four parking stalls and Applicant has proposed four stalls on their submitted site plan. According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated weekday trip generation for 2 employees, 12 students and 1,440 square feet of preschool floor would be between 18.7 and 29.2 trips per day, depending on whether the calculation is based on number of employees, students, or facility square feet. This averages to 24.43 trips per weekday (see table below). Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimate Estimate Estimate Trips Per Trips Per Trips Per Using 2 Using 12 Using Average Employee Student 1,000 Sq. Employees Students 1,440 Estimate Ft. Sq. Ft. 14.6 1.6 18.1 29.2 18.7 25.4 24.43 FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. Applicant desires to locate a Montessori Preschool in a residential zone. 2. The preschool would operate four days per week for four hours a day 3. The preschool would serve up to 12 children per day. 4. Home daycare/preschool centers serving up to 12 children are allowed in residential districts as a home occupation without a Special Permit; however home occupations require the business owner live on-site. 5. Applicant does not wish to live on-site. 6. The site is located at the corner of Sylvester and Road 49 and faces Irving. 7. Sylvester is a minor arterial street. 3 Page 229 of 336 8. The surrounding properties are all low-density residential (RS -12 and RS -20), and are developed with single-family units. 9. Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each employee and one space per 6 children. 10. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS ratio of adults to children is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15 children, 11. The maximum parking requirement for this site based on 12 children will be 1-2 stalls for employees plus 2 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for a total of 3-4 stalls. 12. Applicant has proposed four stalls on their submitted site plan. 13. According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated weekday trip generation averages to 24.43 trips per weekday CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or not the proposal: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low -Density Residential uses. The proposed preschool supports Plan Goal LU -3-A which encourages such facilities to be located in neighborhoods. The Plan also encourages the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other development standards. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? No infrastructure modifications would be required for the preschool. The site is served by all municipal utilities and the local street network. Sylvester Street was designed to handle more traffic than it currently experiences. The proposed preschool will operate four hours per day four days per week, plus one hour for arrival/ departure. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? 4 Page 230 of 336 The intended character of the neighborhood is primarily residential. Typically, schools and or pre-school facilities are located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Parking facilities would need to be expanded, thus changing the character of the properties from residential to institutional. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof The existing structure proposed for preschool use is located in a fully developed neighborhood. The County Assessor's records indicate the value of the adjoining residential properties have increased over the past four years. (5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed preschool would generate more traffic than a single- family dwelling; commercial preschool facilities may accommodate up to 50 children and could have the potential of generating approximately 78 car trips; however the proposed facility would not exceed 12 students. A condition may be placed on the Special Permit to limit enrollment to the proposed 12 students. Traffic generated by the preschool as proposed will occur only on weekdays. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? While a commercial preschool would increase the concentration of small children in the neighborhood and automobile trips to and from the location, increasing the likelihood of traffic safety hazards, past history of preschool operations within the City has shown they do not endanger public health or safety and are generally not nuisance generators. 5 Page 231 of 336 APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to 4818 W Irving Street (Parcel # 119 581 034; Leeper Subdivision Lot 1) 2) The hours of operation shall be limited to four (4) hours per day, not extend beyond the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 3) The number of preschool students served shall be limited to twelve (12) students per 24-hour period, as per the Special Permit application. 4) Only one sign, not exceeding six (6) square feet, shall be permitted upon the property; Applicant shall secure a building permit from the City of Pasco before erecting a Sign; 5) Four parking stalls shall be provided; the design /installation of the parking stalls must be approved by the City of Pasco Community 8v Economic Department. 6) A fenced outdoor play area shall be provided to prevent unauthorized people from entering, and to prevent children from escaping and having access to hazardous areas, and otherwise comply with the requirements of WAC 170-295-2130 and WAC 170-295-5090. 7) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business license for the additional authorized activities is not obtained by March 1, 2017. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17, 2016 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a preschool operation at 4818 W Irving Street, with conditions as listed in the March 17, 2016 staff report. C Page 232 of 336 • Item: Preschool in RS -20 Zone Vicinity • MapApplicant: John Cooley N File #. SP 2016-002 Olit A 1 f LO 1 SYLVESTER ST .. SITE; • PON&," - -Mr- 1, VINt STWM- a� ice- ,Q �"• � r S�� *•a ��K Land Use Item: Preschool in RS -20 Zone Applicant: John Cooley N Map File #: SP 2016-002 0 0 Q 0 ry SFDU SFDUs NESTER ST I@ SITE SFDUs Zoning Map 0 0 Q 0 ry Item: Preschool in RS -20 Zone Applicant: John Cooley File #: SP 2016-002 RS -2 RS -12 NESTER ST I@ SITE RS -12 RS -20 � � IRVING ST � I w 4 Sig ' rt � � IRVING ST Looking North 7y+^ " �E� a tea:• �,"•' �t ,'s. 1 f y _ j Looking East fin. ,y� S�yrry}q! �1 w jy �41 q.. fin. ,y� S�yrry}q! �1 w jy �41 yimwr." WA IO. � !d �`' ^.+ Fes.• r 1 i r '�' ik .YWV �, � _ '� r` °. � � ire � .. � �'�'� � '�c�•,.� ,.-. _ _ �'rift 7 v ook West 'AMA3 f 'S SKrAftft _ ., ,.x�..�+s..r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/18/16 B. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a preschool in an existing home (John Cooley) (MF# SP 2016-002) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit to locate a preschool in an existing home in the RS -20 zoning district. The surrounding area is also zoned RS -20. The proposed preschool is expected to operate 4 days per week for 4 hours per day and would serve up to 12 children. The notable thing about this application is that the applicant and property owner do not wish to live in the home, otherwise, they would not be before the Planning Commission because the State has preempted local land use control over home daycare and preschool uses. If the applicant lived on the property, she would only need to get a business license for a home occupation, however since they don't wish to live there they must get a special use permit. The staff report contains information regarding the teacher to student ratio as well as information regarding parking. The traffic generated will roughly be 24 trips per day. Staff has provided conclusions, findings of fact and proposed approval conditions noting consideration that parking must be approved by staff to meet applicable backing up, maneuvering and measurements and there may be a condition for an applicable fencing once the play area is better defined. Staff received 2 emails from the public regarding this application and those had been distributed to the Planning Commissioners at the bench. Commissioner Khan asked if the public hearing should be delayed until the parking and fencing criteria are determined. Mr. White answered no, but assuming it is approved, staff would suggest conditions that would require parking to be done to City's standards along with fencing of the play area. Jane Cooley, 709 S. Taft Street, Kennewick, spoke on behalf of her application. Chairman Cruz stated to Ms. Cooley that this is her opportunity to state her case into the record. Ms. Cooley responded that the proposal is for a Montessori style preschool, which tends to be quiet and respectful. It would be a work requirement and there would be good barriers for the children so there will not be a need for fencing. For the most part in a 4 hour day, the children are kept active in learning experiences. She added that her preference isn't for 12 children per day but rather 2 sessions, 4 hours long with 6 children each session. This way there will not be a need for assistant teachers. They also have 6 parking spots. Commissioner Portugal asked about not having a need for a fence. Ms. Cooley answered that they have temporary barriers on wheels which would keep the children within a close area to the house. And with a Montessori style preschool the children are kept active in learning experiences. -1- Page 241 of 336 Commissioner Portugal stated that he was concerned because sometimes children can run out. Ms. Cooley responded that they won't be running and playing but there are barriers around the patio area and the children would stay within that confined area if they were anywhere near the house. Chairman Cruz asked if she currently operated a Montessori school and if she has contacted the State to see what they require to operate a Montessori school. Ms. Cooley answered that she currently did not operate a Montessori school but she knows the State requirements. They do not require any fencing or barriers but she does intend on placing fencing in the future. Chairman Cruz summed up the emails that the Planning Commission received as public comment. One letter was concerned about parking issues, availability and parking along Road 49. Other concerns were regarding drop-off issues due to the location near the intersection of Road 49 and Sylvester Street, safety issues of lack of fencing referencing an accident that happened recently on Sylvester. Another email asked the Commission to consider the impact of placing a preschool on Sylvester due to safety with cars racing and that careful consideration should be made to safety, parking and maintaining the property values of the homes in the area. Commissioner Khan asked if she was Montessori certified. Ms. Cooley answered that it isn't a requirement to be Montessori certified to use the name. She added that she does have several master's degrees in education. Commissioner Portugal asked if she was certified to be a teacher or if she had a license. Ms. Cooley responded that it isn't required to be licensed as a teacher for a preschool. Chairman Cruz added that those certifications or licenses are not important for the Planning Commission to consider. Charles Harding, 4804 W. Sylvester Street, spoke on behalf of this application. He asked for clarification for the parking requirements and if it would be on the property. Also, if the application were approved what would change if they no longer wished to operate a preschool but wanted to operate another business, such as selling tires. Chairman Cruz answered that special permits for preschools and other permitted uses in residential areas are very restrictive. Hours of operation, parking and other improvements they have to work through. Another business could not be operated at the property. Commissioner Polk added that it is still zoned residential so in order for another business to operate they would have to rezone the property to commercial if they wanted a business. -2- Page 242 of 336 Chairman Cruz stated that another thing the Planning Commission could do is add a condition to require the special permit to be renewed after a certain amount of time to allow for the neighborhood to see if the preschool is a good fit or mitigate any concerns. Commissioner Khan stated that she is in favor or fencing. Commissioner Mendez agreed and wanted to see fencing required. Commssioner Polk agreed but would be willing to see a temporary special permit issued to see if the current barriers are effective before making that requirement. Mr. White stated that a resolution could be a condition that states fencing as required by State licensing. That way the City of Pasco wouldn't be requiring the fencing or other operations of the preschool, rather leaving those requirements to the State. Chairman Cruz stated that the proposal shows adequate parking, the hours of operation are reasonable and the cap on 12 students per day is reasonable and the fencing requirement to be in accordance with state licensing requirements would work. Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a recommendation for City Council for the March 17, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner -3- Page 243 of 336 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/17/16 B. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a preschool in an existing home (John Cooley) (MF# SP 2016-0021 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application to locate a preschool in an existing home. He explained that conditions #5 and #6 were added to the staff report based on the Planning Commission's discussion the previous month. Condition #7 as contained in the staff report is an error. It is a typo and should be deleted and ignored. Commissioner Polk asked if it should be moved as amended since condition #7 is an error. Mr. White responded yes. Commissioner Greenaway asked if the applicant is fine with conditions #5 and #6. Mr. White responded that they would have to comply with those anyway but now it is more clear. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17, 2016 staff report as amended. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a preschool operation at 4818 W. Irving Street, with conditions as listed in the March 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner -1- Page 244 of 336 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 23, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Special Permit: Location of a Church in a C-1 Zone (MF# SP 2016-001) I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Map Proposed Resolution Report to Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 2/18/16 & 3/17/2016 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and approving a Special Permit for the location of a church in the 6600 block of Chapel Hill Boulevard. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On February 18, 2016, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted for the location of a new church building in the 6600 block of Chapel Hill Boulevard. Following the conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned that with conditions, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of a special permit for the modular building including senior services to be provided in the building. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution. Page 245 of 336 V. DISCUSSION: Bethel Church received a special permit in 2012 to hold services and church activities in a store front of the Broadmoor Mall. The special permit was renewed in 2015. Bethel church has now located a site on which to build a permanent church and is seeking approval of a new special permit. The 7.5 acre site in the 6600 block of Chapel Hill Boulevard is large enough for the current church congregation and will provide ample room for future growth. Page 246 of 336 • Item: Church in a C- 1 Zone Vicinity • MapApplicant: Bethel Church N File #. SP 2016-001 2 n , t Ale s SITES T . 1 O ! ;e CR �� . � � F CHAPEL-1IL--L®BLVD 7.1 Y . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE LOCATION OF A CHURCH IN THE 6600 BLOCK OF CHAPEL HILL BOULEVARD. WHEREAS, Bethel Church submitted an application for the location of a church in the 6600 block of Chapel Hill Boulevard (Tax Parcel 117420161, 117420160 and 117420144); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 18, 2016 to review special permit for Bethel Church; and, WHEREAS, following deliberations on March 17, 2016 and the adoption of findings the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for Bethel Church with certain conditions; WHEREAS, the City Council hereby adopts the Planning Commission findings for the Bethel Church application; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: 1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to Bethel Church for the location of a church in a C-1 (Retail Business) District under Master File # SP2016-001 with the following conditions: a) The special permit shall apply to parcels 117420161, 117420160 and 117420144; b) The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with the application; C) The church may include a daycare facility licensed by the State of Washington d) The church shall not object to the transfer, renewal or issuance of a liquor license for an existing or new establishment within 1,000 feet of the property; C) This special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by December 31, 2017. Page 248 of 336 Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 4th day of April, 2016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 249 of 336 • Item: Church in a C- 1 Zone Vicinity • MapApplicant: Bethel Church N File #. SP 2016-001 2 n , t Ale s SITES T . 1 O ! ;e CR �� . � � F CHAPEL-1IL--L®BLVD y am, - °T DEL MAR CT- C21y Y . REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP2016-001 HEARING DATE: 2-18-16 ACTION DATE: 3-17-16 BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: Bethel Church 600 Shockley Rd. Richland, WA 99352 Location of a Church in a C-1 District Legal: Lot 1, Binding Site Plan 2007-07 8s Lots 3 & 4, Binding Site Plan 2013-02 General Location: 6600 Block of Chapel Hill Boulevard Property: Approximately 7 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Chapel Hill Boulevard 3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned C-1 (Retail Business). Surrounding properties are zoned as follows: NORTH: NA - I-182 SOUTH: R-4 - Apartments EAST: R-3 - Apartments WEST: C-1 -Vacant COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Plan for future commercial uses. The Plan does not specifically address churches, but elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other development standards. S. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. Page 251 of 336 ANALYSIS The application involves the construction of a new church with associated parking and sports fields on a 7 acre site within the Chapel Hill Development. The proposed church site is located in the 6600 block of Chapel Hill Boulevard on C-1 property between Chapel Hill Boulevard and I-182. The church will contain 18,000 square feet of floor area divided into an auditorium, multi- purpose rooms, offices and support facilities. Bethel church is currently located in the Broadmoor Square Mall. The municipal code requires one parking space for every 10 linear feet of pews or one space for every 4 seats where there are no pews. The proposed church has an auditorium with approximately 4,000 square feet which will allow seating for approximately 570 people. This seating will require a minimum of 143 parking spaces. The church is proposing to construct 227 parking spaces. The proposed parking lot will incorporate landscaping and will contain landscaped islands are require by the parking and landscape regulations. Most of the traffic generated by the church will occur on Sunday mornings (9:00 am to 11:00 am) and on a few weekday evenings when little other traffic occurs on surrounding streets. If the property were to be developed with a commercial enterprise there would be considerably more traffic on a weekly basis than what the church will generate. This property is located in the I-182 overlay zone. Said zone requires a higher standard for design and construction than in other areas of the community. All commercial and multi -family buildings with in this zone must comply with the higher standards. Only single-family homes are exempt from the standards. In as much as churches are similar to commercial buildings under the International Building Code it would be appropriate for churches to follow the I-182 overlay standards. The proposed church will have an exterior of masonry block, stucco and glazing and will have at least three distinct architectural features per elevation. The surround grounds and parking lot will be heavily landscaped. The elevations for the proposed church indicate the peak of the center roof will be 41 feet high. Building heights by the code are measured from the mid -point between the highest point of a roof and the eaves. In this case the mid -point is close to 35 feet. The Planning Commission has reviewed application from several churches in the past that have exceeded the height limitation in their respective zones. At 35 feet the Bethel church is within the height limitation. Churches are typically located in or near residential neighborhoods. Typically locating a non -tax generating use in a commercial zone with freeway visibility is generally not a good choice for promoting commercial development. Perhaps the mitigating factor in this case the recent rezone on Road 68 from R-4 to C-1 and the large (145 acres) C-1 rezone two years ago at the corner of I-182 and 2 Page 252 of 336 Broadmoor Boulevard. Another potential problem with a church locating in a commercial area is the fact that some retail establishments or restaurants sell or serve liquor. The issue is typically addressed by placing a condition on the Special Permit approval limiting the church's ability to object to a liquor license on nearby commercial lands. FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. Churches are unclassified uses requiring review through the special permit process prior to locating or expanding in any zoning district. 2. The proposed church site is zoned C-1. 3. The proposed church will occupy seven acres of land that has been set aside for future commercial development. 4. The City added 145 acres of land to the commercial zoning inventory in 2014 when a large portion of the vacant land at the northwest corner of I-182 and Broadmoor Boulevard was rezoned to from RT to C-1. 5. The church floor plan indicates the church will contain an auditorium, multi-purpose rooms, offices and support facilities. 6. The auditorium of the church contains about 4,000 square feet. 7. The Municipal Code (PMC 25.78.170) requires one off street parking space for every four seats in a church. 8. The Municipal Code requires the proposed church to have a minimum of 127 parking spaces. 9. The church is providing 227 parking spaces. 10. The proposed church will have exterior finishes of brick, stucco and glazing with at least three architectural features per elevation. 11. The church site will be fully landscaped. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or not the proposal: 3 Page 253 of 336 (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Plan does not specifically address churches, but elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other development standards. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The site for the proposed church is located in a commercial zoning district adjacent to an arterial street. The proposed church will conduct services at times when future commercial traffic is generally low and utility usage is low. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The proposed church will be built to meet the I-182 design standards helping the building to maintain the enhanced architectural standards for the neighborhood. Some of the future commercial uses on the property to the west may be objectionable to the church. For example taverns, nightclubs and restaurant and other businesses selling liquor will be permitted to locate beside the church. A church could impact the sale of liquor on nearby properties. That however, can be remedied with the approval conditions of the special permit. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The proposed church will be located on a commercially zoned parcel adjacent to apartment buildings. Churches typically do not impair the value of nearby residential properties. Pasco has had little experience with churches in commercial districts. However, there are several churches in other communities within the Tri -Cities that are located in commercially zoned areas that have not appeared to limit commercial development on nearby properties. (5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? 4 Page 254 of 336 The church will generate no more dust, vibrations, flashing lights or fumes than would be expected by permitted retail uses of the C-1 zoning district. Traffic generated by the church will occur mostly on Sunday mornings when future commercial traffic will be minimal. Small weekly meetings will generate little additional traffic on other days of the week. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Past history of church operations within the City has shown they do not endanger public health or safety and are generally not nuisance generators. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to parcels 117420161, 117420160 and 117420144; 2) The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with the application; 3) The church may include a daycare facility licensed by the State of Washington 4) The church shall not object to the transfer, renewal or issuance of a liquor license for an existing or new establishment within 1,000 feet of the property; 5) This special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by December 31, 2017. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17, 2016 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Bethel Church for the location of a church 6600 Block of Chapel Hill Boulevard with conditions as contained in the March 17, 2016 staff report. 5 Page 255 of 336 • Item: Church in a C- 1 Zone Vicinity • MapApplicant: Bethel Church N File #. SP 2016-001 2 n , t Ale s SITES T . 1 O ! ;e CR �� . � � F CHAPEL-1IL--L®BLVD y am, - °T DEL MAR CT- C21y Y . Land Use Item: Church in a G 1 Zone Applicant: Bethel Church Map File #: SP 2016-001 9 O U Vacant CHAPEL HILL BLVD SITE Apartments Sports Fields EL M 7,:�, k ,,,ISFDUs Zoning Item: Church in a G 1 Zone Applicant: Bethel Church Map File #: SP 2016-001 C-1 CHAPEL HILL BLVD R-4 -, *4 4 \''8? SITE C-1 RT EL M v R- 1 '�4) v Co O N CO O W W OF) eY-x' BM -B' ]1'-t0' Hu99:s]6 x,rt Ra AIF P M Yr YYwon Q O (3 O B/AW1 � Y,o L�e,rt /10 100, nertB�E �. C tBM. W/- G 4 CYY —MR- G a,Rlq INC w RESR NS S/AW2 MIY ,Fµ ED W S Elm 4UBSN W SnMx ,axt5 EouiREn R[nwY -BRYtS M K WNxaRm SfOREFRpM 5+5,EY B/AS@B G REYFAL JGWIS s B1BUCf COL Tu wtcN 4wWtuY %RAZED WSNOaWS StOR[RRwxr rP Bw NORTH ELEVATION L l TT T ay.+ ws �allwl3 NVG /i6/„ saWawc 6£A„ YEn� soar NVRv.BB � as/�s/, I I I st11C� Isw W/ ,anis' CMUN-- SACKER ROD AND SEALANT, B 5€E OEIALL 1/:1165 _ NO GROAT NLL:IGnT OF uuww•WR RR1Ym wlNoows wAu. SAW cut Un,N1T5 AS N REQVIREO. Ix _ ,�• tr»r.Nc svr YEsa Rao, 3 DETAIL 1 CONTROL MINT 5 Z�0 1 a 0 i. 0. -� - ooWr,BWo,a WI t9.' q B�nAsreLaR�eN. - s O *N1Ni w X ret• Y, -n• 1e._a. ,a,_a.. a,-_ ,. ya._,. _"• � W`"" Mr>� yAwB r� ,.ins L.�1, EIFS FlN15N t' �RE`1EM1L JOINT (I- MME) A201 Malin �BiBlV1QAB64-Y WEST ELEVATION DETAIL 2 CD N 07 O O W W 1 v+' -,o• � 1o' -a• r er-x• •' san ras Ise r. sov las.w» 3 .iu- Mn uxr ��� FSF� ® O fd O r -s rr�• ra'-o• r -a• rr� - wNl Mro uvn rnrtwF� 3 © B �,rixru,c ww. Mro r � wNl Mrp �Fntuec uw: / s �mo .. x w e Ealv&L w G aWRE5�5 G MUMH�M FPIMm EMaY 545[iM REVFwI JOMffS w�ss STEM w/MIM,smv U2 r 6/A301 / fEW.A�m CVtV,C �• [1W 4flYEER w/ ursw.*tn a..zr,c xcv� .w+nn xeur.rsm SOUTH ELEVATION au m/za/Is .oA,vxo eP as/+sFls ��� � sr 5� MNL i,ISIxWN MµgMG i I.wlO w a a O n/PNi�PEr � J��x m 4i - - � aNMiFa MEru wuaM�. Pae,oE rnlr rra 16._v. le' -e` le• -o• sFE oa wa,c c5ot. iiuxrm M€rl aMnawa a�uS �A202 IsE¢Nirvc s cncrw Tn rrren MAwl .' c- nu�Em� T.nlerasaaczar-s EAST ELEVATION +/a• - r:q spas CD N 07 O O W W Bethel Pasco Site Plan GRASS SPORTS FIELDS GRASS y SPORTS I I II FIELD - r r---TL-- a i E mml �M 'z E M9I Interstate 182 FL}TURE CO\ S I HUC I ION 4 ST PHASE hUILDING -8500 SF OVERFLOW GRAVEL PARKING I Z I DI r I nl I z I ° 1111 1 _ .11Z 1 tlttl. I I I n -523' SIGN Chapel Hill Blvd. Page 261 of 336 Looking North -. II ,IIII' Illlllhl vel I 1*,_e � _a�.ek .. rr'✓` •3M . wwy 4 _ - ;k,.. - ,;."�aay;4• _, r. t I MY �- � �. "� _ �. � �' � � a - .. �- � �. "� _ �. � �' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/18/2016 A. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a church (Bethel Church) (MF# SP 2016-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application to locate a church. Bethel Church received a temporary special permit a few years ago to locate in the Broadmoor Outlet Mall. They received an extension to that special permit but have found a location they feel they could build a church on. The site is located on Chapel Hill Boulevard just to the north of the Chapel Hill Crossings Apartments and to the west of the Villages at Chapel Hill. This site is comprised of three parcels, 7 acres, which is a decent size for a church allowing for ample parking and expansion in the future. The applicant has provided a site plan that shows the parking lot along Chapel Hill Boulevard with landscaping and the first phase of the building along with future additions to the building. They are also proposing grass fields and sports facilities along the freeway to the north of the proposed church. The church can hold approximately 570 people or more in the main auditorium which would require parking for 143 spaces, however, they are providing 227 spaces with their site plan; exceeding the parking requirements. In terms of traffic, churches typically operate minimally throughout the week with their big day on Sunday. The rest of the community at that time is not generating significant amounts of traffic so there shouldn't be conflicts with the neighborhood and the church. On weeknights there are a few meetings but, it is after the morning and evening rush. This site is located within the I-182 Corridor and with that there are enhanced design standards the church will have to follow. The church has indicated that the exterior of the building will be some type of stucco material which generally fits with the design standards. Staff provided findings of fact and the review of criteria to consider when reviewing special permits. Chairman Cruz asked if parking is allowed on Chapel Hill Boulevard. Mr. McDonald responded that people can park on the street. Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification on a traffic light on Chapel Hill Boulevard. Mr. McDonald replied that there is a traffic light on Road 68 at Chapel Hill Boulevard. Commissioner Polk asked if the land is zoned C-1. Mr. McDonald indicated it was. Jim Dirks, 70405 E. 713 PRNE, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of Bethel Church. He Page 266 of 336 stated that the church is happy with the community and feel that this site is a good fit. Commissioner Bowers asked if the play fields would be available for the community. Mr. Dirks responded that he's not sure. They have a facility in Prosser where their facilities are used by the community but it will be up to the specific board at the church, plus liabilities that need to be considered. Commissioner Khan asked if the church intends to keep the preschool that is currently a part of the Broadmoor Outlet Mall location. Mr. Dirks responded that he believes they would have the preschool at the new location. Commissioner Mendez asked if they continue to operate the preschool during daytime, weekday hours and how many students they accommodate because traffic is a concern. Mr. Dirks replied that he believes there are roughly 50 students and it would likely continue during the day. Commissioner Mendez asked how many members the church could accommodate for services. Mr. Dirks responded that it would hold 500 including the children's area - the auditorium would hold roughly 450. Services have generally been at 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. at all of their locations. Commissioner Bowers asked how many have been attending at the Broadmoor Outlet Mall location. Mr. Dirks answered that they can seat roughly 300 and between the two services they currently have about 300 attendees including children. Commissioner Polk mentioned the preschool and asked if the special permit would transfer to the new location since it could affect the function of the church. Mr. McDonald responded that typically special permits are required for commercial daycares. A person could have a daycare in a home as long as you have 12 kids or less with no special permit required. Staff was unsure when the application came in whether the daycare was going to transfer over. Through this process the special permit could be modified to include the daycare so they wouldn't have to come back and go through the process again. It is essentially a function of the church. Chairman Cruz discussed his concern regarding traffic and on -street parking on 2 Page 267 of 336 Chapel Hill Boulevard. He would like to see a constraint to have enough on-site parking to suit the maximum occupancy in the building so that cars aren't parking on residential streets and congesting the neighborhoods. Mr. Dirks responded that he is fully supportive of that and the site plan has an overabundance of parking. Kalyn Karlberg, 6614 Aintree Drive, spoke on behalf of this special permit application. She stated that she welcomes the church to come to her area but has concerns regarding traffic on Road 68. The traffic will have to turn left and that turn lane cannot even handle morning and afternoon traffic and sometimes people have to wait 4-5 lights to be able to take a left. For 300-500 people to make a turn at the same to go to church on a Sunday it will make traffic a nightmare. It was mentioned that most traffic is down during Sunday's but Ms. Karlberg stated that she does travel Sunday mornings and it will be very heavily trafficked. A solution would be to have someone come in and direct the traffic on Sunday mornings, such as local police, that could be hired by the church to ensure the traffic flows and doesn't inhabit all of the people that live in the area. She stated that she has to take a left to get to her home and if she's travelling during that time she will have to wait with 300-500 other people. Commissioner Polk mentioned that Bethel Church does have guided traffic. Chairman Cruz clarified that Bethel Church in Richland uses local police to guide traffic. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers stated that she appreciated the last comment regarding guided traffic since that is one of her concerns. Commissioner Polk asked if a church would pay for a traffic study. Mr. McDonald answered that the church will be required to pay a traffic impact fee. When the last church was built off of Sandifur Parkway they had to pay a traffic mitigation fee and that church has even more attendees than this proposed church will and they get through the neighborhood fine on Sunday's. There is also another way to come to the proposed church, as not everyone will come from Road 68. Saratoga Lane connects with Argent Road so many people coming from the south will come that way. Chairman Cruz agreed that traffic should not be an issue as the majority of the use will be on Sunday's when traffic is generally low. He mentioned Faith Assembly on Court Street which seats 1,200 people keeps traffic moving. The proposed Bethel Church will have less attendees. Commissioner Bowers asked how many attendees might live in the vicinity around the church as that could reduce traffic. 3 Page 268 of 336 Chairman Cruz responded that it would be hard to get that type of demographic information. Commissioner Portugal asked how the traffic on Road 68 will be addressed. Mr. McDonald responded that as the properties on Road 68 develop the developers will add width to the road and curb and gutter. The City is currently working with the Department of Natural Resources to extend Chapel Hill Boulevard to the west. Staff is also currently working with the State and Federal Highway Department to come up with a design for additional entrances/exits off of the freeway at different locations to funnel traffic away from Road 68. In addition, part of the DNR project includes Road 76 that would go up to the freeway and either over or under it. It will be a number of years before much of these projects are started. The State and Federal Highway Administration doesn't move very fast. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that the property to the north of Chapel Hill Boulevard is currently zoned C-1 (Retail Business) which would allow for such stores as Target and since those are a permitted use, not public hearing would even be required. So while 500 people coming to the church seems like a lot, it is drastically less than a commercial store that would have large amounts of traffic 7 days per week and often during peak hours. Chairman Cruz agreed that there are permitted uses that could be developed on this property that would generate more traffic than a church. He asked in terms of the daycare if any of the Commissioners had an issue. Chairman Khan asked if the daycare would fall under this special permit. Mr. McDonald responded that it could fall under this special permit and they are licensed by the State and they would have to follow all regulations for outdoor play areas, supervision and staff. The Commissioners did not have any issues with the daycare. Commissioner Polk stated that the use even with the daycare will still mostly be the same and the impact seems marginal. Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a recommendation for City Council for the March 17, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. 4 Page 269 of 336 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/17/2016 A. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a church (Bethel Church) (MF# SP 2016-001) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner briefly discussed the recommended conditions to clarify condition number three dealing with a daycare. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Bethel Church for the location of a church at the 6600 Block of Chapel Hill Boulevard with conditions as contained in the March 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. 5 Page 270 of 336 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 22, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Jeff Adams, Associate Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Special Permit: Valdivia Daycare (MF# SP 2016-003) I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Map Proposed Resolution Report to Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 2/18/2016 and 3/17/2016 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving a special permit for the location of a daycare center at 3503 W Sylvester Street, as recommended by the Planning Commission. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On March 17, 2016 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend the location of a daycare center at 3503 W Sylvester Street. Following the conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned it would be appropriate to recommend locating a daycare center at 3503 W Sylvester Street. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. V. DISCUSSION: Page 271 of 336 Applicant is requesting to locate a daycare center in a residential zone. The daycare center would operate 5 days per week for 12.5 hours a day and would serve up to 30 children per day. Home daycare/preschool centers serving over 12 children per day require review via the Special Permit process. Page 272 of 336 Item: Preschool in RS -12 ZoneVicinity• MapApplicant: Mariana & Juan Valdivia N File #. SP 2016-003 ~� A .' y' .. -, '� .' � �%� �, ` �_, •,, pal,,-. - � ��� t� �..,, O 4 M 1, —, A tib, Nil- .. i. CD AMEM a ! SITE Nor" cF� SY�VESTERrST r_ �t r t � . URRIAN, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PRESCHOOL IN AN RS -12 (RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN) DISTRICT. WHEREAS, Mariana & Juan Valdivia submitted an application for the location of a daycare center located at 3503 W Sylvester Street. (Tax Parcel 119 392 099); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 18, 2016 to review a special permit for the proposed daycare center; and, WHEREAS, following deliberations on March 17, 2016 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the daycare center with certain conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: 1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to Mariana & Juan Valdivia for a preschool in an RS -12 (residential suburban) District under Master File # SP 2016-003 with the following conditions: a. The special permit shall apply to 3503 W Sylvester Street (Parcel #119 392 099; (Short Plat 2015-01 Lot 2) b. The hours of operation shall not extend beyond the hours of 5:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; c. Number of children shall not exceed thirty (30). d. A minimum of ten (10) parking stalls shall be provided in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan. e. Only one sign, not exceeding six (6) square feet, shall be permitted upon the property; Applicant shall secure a building permit from the City of Pasco before erecting a sign; f. A fenced outdoor play area shall be provided to prevent unauthorized people from entering, and to prevent children from escaping and having access to hazardous areas, and otherwise comply with the requirements of WAC 170-295-2130 and WAC 170-295-5090. g. The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit for the authorized improvements is not obtained by October 1, 2016. h. The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business license for the additional authorized activities is not obtained by March 1, 2017. Page 274 of 336 Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 4th day of April, 2016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 275 of 336 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2016-003 HEARING DATE: 2/18/16 ACTION DATE: 3/17/16 APPLICANT: Mariana 8v Juan Valdivia 3503 W Sylvester St Pasco WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Location of a daycare center in an RS -12 District Lam: Parcel # 119 392 099; SHORT PLAT 2015-01 LOT 2 General Location: 3503 W Sylvester Street Property Size: Approximately .52 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Sylvester Street 3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned RS -12 (Low - Density Residential). Surrounding properties are also zoned RS -12 and developed as follows: NORTH: RS -12 - Single family units SOUTH: RS -12 - Church EAST: RS -12 - Single family units WEST: RS -12 - Single family units S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for low-density residential uses. The Plan does not specifically address daycare centers, but elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other development. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. Page 276 of 336 ANALYSIS Applicant is requesting to locate a daycare center in a residential zone. The daycare center would operate 5 days per week for 12.5 hours a day and would serve up to 30 children per day. Home daycare/ preschool centers serving over 12 children per day require review via the Special Permit process. The site is located on Sylvester Street, which is a minor arterial street. The surrounding properties are all low-density residential, developed with single- family units. Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each employee and one space per 6 children. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS ratio of adults to children is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15 children, (see table below). WAC 170-295-2090: Thus, with the proposed 30 children the maximum on-site parking requirement for this site will be 5 stalls for employees (assuming the possibility of children under the age of 5 attending) plus 5 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for a total of 10 stalls. There is sufficient room on-site for 10 parking stalls and Applicant has proposed 10 stalls on their submitted site plan. 2 Page 277 of 336 Then the And the If the age of Cum. Cum. the children staff to maximum Children Adults Max Max is: child ratio group Children Adults is: size is: (a) One month, through 11 1:4 8 8 2 8 2 months (infant) (b) Twelve months through 29 1:7 14 14 2 22 4 months (toddler) (c) Thirty months 1:10 20 20 2 42 6 through 5 years (preschooler) (d) Five years through 12 1:15 30 8 1 50 7 years (school- age child) Thus, with the proposed 30 children the maximum on-site parking requirement for this site will be 5 stalls for employees (assuming the possibility of children under the age of 5 attending) plus 5 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for a total of 10 stalls. There is sufficient room on-site for 10 parking stalls and Applicant has proposed 10 stalls on their submitted site plan. 2 Page 277 of 336 According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated weekday trip generation for 7 employees, 30 children and 1,830 square feet of daycare center floor would be between 33.2 and 102.2 trips per day, depending on whether the calculation is based on number of employees, children, or facility square feet. This averages to 60.72 trips per weekday (see table below). Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimate Estimate Estimate Trips Per Trips Per Trips Per Using 7 Using 30 Using Average Employee Student 1,000 Sq. Employees Children 1,830 Estimate Ft. Sq. Ft. 14.6 1.6 18.1 102.2 46.8 33.2 60.72 FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. Applicant desires to locate a daycare center in a residential zone. 2. The daycare center would operate 5 days per week for 12.5 hours a day 3. The daycare center would serve up to 30 children per day. 4. Home daycare/ preschool centers serving over 12 children per day require review via the Special Permit process. 5. The site is located on Sylvester Street. 6. Sylvester is a minor arterial street. 7. The surrounding properties are all low-density residential (RS -12), and are developed with single-family units. 8. Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each employee and one space per 6 children. 9. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS ratio of adults to children is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15 children, 10. The maximum parking requirement for this site based on 30 children will be 5 stalls for employees plus 5 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for a total of 10 stalls. 3 Page 278 of 336 11. Applicant has proposed 10 stalls on their submitted site plan. 12. According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated weekday trip generation averages to 60.72 trips per weekday CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or not the proposal: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low -Density Residential uses. The proposed daycare center supports Plan Goal LU -3- A which encourages such facilities to be located in neighborhoods. The Plan also encourages the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other development standards. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? No infrastructure modifications would be required for the daycare center. The site is served by all municipal utilities and the local street network. Sylvester Street was designed to handle more traffic than it currently experiences. The proposed daycare center will operate 12.5 hours per day 5 days per week. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The intended character of the neighborhood is primarily residential. Typically, schools and/or preschool/ daycare facilities are located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Parking facilities would need to be expanded, thus changing the character of the properties from residential to institutional. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The existing structure proposed for daycare center use is located in a fully developed neighborhood. The County Assessor's records indicate the 4 Page 279 of 336 value of the adjoining residential properties have increased over the past four years. (5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed daycare center would generate more traffic than a single- family dwelling; commercial daycare facilities may accommodate up to 50 children and could have the potential of generating approximately 78 car trips; however the proposed facility would not exceed 30 children. A condition may be placed on the Special Permit to limit enrollment to the proposed 30 children. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? While a commercial daycare center would increase the concentration of small children in the neighborhood and automobile trips to and from the location, increasing the likelihood of traffic safety hazards; however past history of daycare center operations within the City has shown they do not endanger public health or safety and are generally not nuisance generators. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to 3503 W Sylvester Street (Parcel #119 392 099; (Short Plat 2015-01 Lot 2) 2) The hours of operation shall not extend beyond the hours of 5:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 3) Number of children shall not exceed thirty (30). 4) A minimum of ten (10) parking stalls shall be provided in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan. 5) Only one sign, not exceeding six (6) square feet, shall be permitted upon the property; Applicant shall secure a building permit from the City of Pasco before erecting a sign; 6) A fenced outdoor play area shall be provided to prevent unauthorized people from entering, and to prevent children from escaping and having access to hazardous areas, and otherwise comply with the requirements of WAC 170-295-2130 and WAC 170-295-5090. 5 Page 280 of 336 7) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit for the authorized improvements is not obtained by October 1, 2016. 8) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business license for the additional authorized activities is not obtained by March 1, 2017. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17, 2016 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a daycare center at 3503 W Sylvester Street, with conditions as listed in the March 17, 2016 staff report. C Page 281 of 336 Land Use Item: Preschool in RS -12 Zone Applicant: Mariana & Juan Valdivia Map File #: SP 2016-003 N O CO Q' SFDUs o SFDUs SFDUs SYLVESTER Church SITE SFDUs Zoning Item: Preschool in RS -12 Zone Applicant: Mariana & Juan Valdivia Map File #: SP 2016-003 N O CO Q' RS -12 �� o RS -1 2 SYLVESTER RS -12 SITE RS -12 Site Plan Xdd'l� arking� (+5) Main Parldng (7 Spaces) Sylvester St. Page 285 of 336 Y, Looking East �_ � R . ' r I ` _ -__ -_ - - _ I - 1 �__ - � _ _r 7 0 9 iM'1i Iq A-V oop- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/18/16 C. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a daycare center in an existing home (Juan & Mariana Valdivia) (MF# SP 2016-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application to locate a daycare facility in an existing home in an RS -12 zone. This proposal indicates that the daycare center would operate 5 days per week for 13 hours per day and could serve up to 30 children per day. Since the number is greater than 12 it is not preempted by state regulations which is why the special permit is before the Planning Commission. The staff report covers the state regulations for the ratios of children to teachers and an assumption of a total of 10 parking stalls are needed for the estimated number of children and corresponding number of teachers or employees. The traffic generation is estimated at 61 trips per day. Staff provided conclusions and findings of fact for consideration. Commissioner Khan asked for clarification on one of the conditions in the staff report regarding the hours of operation and if those hours are what the applicant has requested or if those times are what staff came up with. Mr. White responded that there is no specific required time range required by staff. Juan & Mariana Valdivia, 1732 N. 18th Avenue, spoke on behalf of their application. Ms. Valdivia stated they currently have a home daycare but would like to expand since there is more need for childcare which is why they picked the proposed location. Chairman Cruz responded that this application is pretty straightforward and access would be from Sylvester Street. He asked if the 5:30 a.m. start time is based on the business need or their preference. Ms. Valdivia answered that is based on how many parents need that early start time but it could be adjusted. In her experience the need is for early childcare. Chairman Cruz stated that the proposed special permit conditions would include a limit of 30 children so if they needed to accommodate more children they would have to come back to the Planning Commission. He asked the applicant if that was a condition that was acceptable. Ms. Valdivia responded that they are still waiting from the state to give them the capacity they are approved for but 30 children is likely to be the largest capacity for the building. Commissioner Portugal asked if there is a fence on the property. Mr. Valdivia answered that there is already a 6' fence on the property but they intend to complete it with a security gate. -1- Page 290 of 336 Commissioner Bowers asked if the 7 parking stalls in the front of the property will be designated for parent drop off and if the 5 in the back are for staff. Mr. Valdivia stated that is correct. There is a garage that is old that they will likely remove to make more parking for employees. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a recommendation for City Council for the March 17, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner -2- Page 291 of 336 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/17/16 C. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a daycare center in an existing home (Juan & Mariana Valdivia) (MF# SP 2016-003) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application to locate a daycare center in an existing home. He explained that condition #5 #6 was added to the staff report based on the Planning Commission's discussion the previous month which identifies State regulations for fencing. Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a daycare center at 3503 W. Sylvester Street, with conditions as listed in the March 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner -1- Page 292 of 336 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 29, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Broadmoor Area Master Plan/Planned Action SEPA Professional Service Agreement I. REFERENCE(S): Professional Service Agreement Summary II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Service Agreement with Hansen Design for the Broadmoor Area Master Plan and Planned Action SEPA Analysis, and further, authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditures in proportion to the approved line item in the 2016 adopted Budget ($275,000). IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: In February of 2015 the City and the major property owner in the Broadmoor area approved a letter of agreement that will transfer 5 acres of property within this area to the City for municipal uses (fire stations, community centers, parks...) as "payment" for the City's lead in undertaking planning and marketing efforts for his particular property. Staff has worked in close coordination with design and marketing professionals on this approach and has met with a measure of success in establishing this area as a promising location for commercial and residential development. At the January 25, 2016 Workshop, Council heard a presentation from the City's professional consultant on the efforts with master planning, marketing and preparing the larger Broadmoor Area for "permit ready" status. Page 293 of 336 These efforts involve managing concurrent activities including: Establishing land use designation and locations in close coordination with Council Goals and economic factors; Establishing "on the ground" locations for infrastructure (roads, utilities and public land uses); Providing certainty to the development community on product expectations and return on investment; Accomplishing environmental review and clearance; and Providing a systematic and comprehensive approach to developing a large and valuable community asset. V. DISCUSSION: The City's adopted 2016 Budget contains funding for the next level of planning, marketing and permit preparation for this larger Broadmoor Area that is necessary to establish it as a preferred location for community and regional development The Broadmoor area provides the best location in Pasco for regional commercial development. It contains several distinctively marketable commercial and residential properties. The site possesses superior views to the south, east and west, has ease of access and is recognized for its development potential. Continuing planning, implementing utility improvements and marketing for this area is important and necessary to realize the area's development potential. The Planned Action SEPA process, which will accomplish environmental clearance is seen as a critical step the City can proactively undertake. As Pasco continues its west and northwestward growth pattern, the City will need to establish community services in the Broadmoor area. These services will require appropriate locations for a range services such as fire stations, community centers and parks. The February 2015 letter of agreement with the major landowner in this area provides the framework for location of these services to occur in this area. Council discussed the proposed Professional Service Agreement at the March 28, 2016 Workshop. Page 294 of 336 Professional Services Agreement (Summary Sheet) Project: Broadmoor Area Master Plan Professional Service Agreement Consultant: Hansen/DESIGN Address: 2311 N. 451h St. Seattle, Washington, 98103 Scope of Services: Planned Action SEPA analysis including topographic analysis; land use master planning; traffic data collection and analysis; stakeholder meetings and consultation; preparation of initial developer agreements for design amenities; creation and implementation of leasing, development and marketing strategies. Term: 7 months Completion Date: October 1, 2016 Payments to Consultant: X Hourly Rate: varies per subcontractor but not to exceed $275,000 ❑ Fixed Sum of - El £❑ Other: Insurance to be Provided: 1. Commercial General Liability: X $1,000,000 each occurrence; ❑ $2,000,000 general aggregate; or ❑ $ each occurrence; and $ general aggregate 2. Professional Liability: X $1,000,000 per claim; ❑ $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit; or ❑ $ per claim; and $ per policy aggregate limit Other Information: Signature by: ❑ Mayor X City Manager 3/27/13 Page 295 of 336 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 31, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 4/4/16 FROM: Colleen Chapin, Human Resources Manager SUBJECT: Collective Bargaining Agreement with IAFF, Local 1433 I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement with IAFF, Local 1433 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the IAFF, Local 1433 for years 2016-2017 and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Increases cost of department operations (base wages and benefits) by approximately $160,000 in 2016 and $198,000 in 2017, with 45.7% covered by the ambulance utility and 54.3% from the general fund (fire). IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Previous Collective Bargaining Agreement terminated December 31, 2015. V. DISCUSSION: Negotiations commenced in July 2015 with this 63 -member bargaining unit. The parties reached a tentative agreement February 12, 2016. Local 1433 notified the City on 03/31/16 that the members had voted to ratify the tentative agreement. Numerous contract language modifications were negotiated which provide greater clarity for management and the bargaining unit members. Additionally, to address the Council's interest that employees have an increased cost sharing for the Health Plan (as well as attempting to maintain internal equity between employee groups as much as possible) the City sought an increase in the cap that Page 296 of 336 employees pay for medical insurance. The IAFF agreed to a raise in the employee portion of the premium from 2.0% to 2.5% of the pay rate of a top step firefighter (to $167.26, up from $131.21). It is important to note that having a settled contact with this interest arbitration eligible unit is advantageous in that it limits potential arbitration costs and prevents an outside party from imposing financial mandates upon the City. It is important for the City to maintain reasonable parity, over a range of benefits which can be priced out as "total compensation," in order not to find itself in a position of vulnerability if arbitration is invoked. As such, the proposed settlement, without the City having to go into extended bargaining or arbitration, represents a significant step forward for the city and the bargaining unit. Following are the significant changes reflected in the new agreement: Effective January 2016: 2.00% wage increase Effective June 2016: 2.00% deferred compensation contribution Effective January 2017: 1.75% wage increase; 2.00% deferred compensation contribution Increase cap to 2.5% from 2.0% for employee medical premium Staff recommends Council ratification of the Agreement. Page 297 of 336 2016-2017 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT between CITY OF PASCO and LOCAL NO. 1433 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS 2016 - 2417 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, international Association of Fire Fighters — Page 1 Page 298 of 336 2016-2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section A. General articles ARTICLE 1— RECOGNITION ....................................................................... 7 Section 1.1 —Union Recognized Section 1.2 — Negotiations Section 1.3 — Classifications ARTICLE 2 — TERM OF AGREEMENT ..........................................................7 ARTICLE 3 — UNION SECURITY / PAYROLL 8 Section 3.1 — Assessment — Exceptions Section 3.2 — Payroll Deductions Section 3.3 — Hold Harmless ARTICLE 4 — DISCRIMINATION ...................................................................... 8 Section 4.1 —No Discrimination ARTICLE 5— UNION BUSINESS ....................................................................... 8 ARTICLE 6 — LEGISLATIVE COST INCREASES ..............................................9 ARTICLE 7 — PREVAILING RIGHTS ............................................................9 ARTICLE 8 — MANAGEMENT RIGHTS ............................................................9 ARTICLE 9 — GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ...................................... I ...... 10 Section 9.1 — Procedure Steps Section 9.2 — Non Compliance With Time Limits Section 9.3 — Exceptions To Grievance Procedure Section 9.4 — Election Of Remedies / Waiver ARTICLE 10 — SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT .............................................. I I ARTICLE 11— PERFORMANCE OF DUTY — NO STRIKF, AGREEMENT ............ I I ARTICLE 12 — SAVINGS CLAUSE ................................................................. I I ARTICLE 13 — FIRE CODE ENFORCEMENT ................................................. I I Section B. Benefits ARTICLE 14 —VACATIONS ....................................................................... 12 Section 14.1 — Accrual 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 2 Page 299 of 336 Section 14.2 — Vacation and Holiday Scheduling Section 14.3 -- Usage I Maximum Accrual Section 14.4 — Separation From Service Section 14.6 — Vacation Cash Out ARTICLE 15 — SICK LEAVE...........................................................................13 Section 15.1 — Accrual Section 15.2 -- LEOFF Disability Leave Section 15.3 — LEOFF 11 Employees Section 15.4 — LEOFF Benefit Changes Section 15.5 — Illness of Family Members Section 15.6 — Notification and Reporting Section 15.7 — Family and Medical Leave Act ARTICLE 16 — SICK LEAVE BUY BACK.......................................................15 ARTICLE 17 — HOLIDAY PAY......................................................................15 Section 17.1 — Holidays Section 17.2 — Accrual / Utilization ARTICLE 18 — BEREAVEMENT..................................................................16 ARTICLE 19 — HEALTH INSURANCE...........................................................16 Section 19.1 — Employee Medical Coverage Section 19.2 — Employee Prescription Coverage Section 19.3 — Employee Dental Coverage Section 19.4 — Employee Vision Coverage Section 19.5 — Dependent Medical Coverage Section 19.6 — Dependent Prescription Coverage Section 19.7 — Dependent Dental Coverage Section 19.8 — Dependent Vision Coverage Section 19.9 Section 19.10 Section 19.11 — Re -opener Due to State or Federal Legislation ARTICLE 20 — GROUP TERM LIFE INSURANCE...........................................18 ARTICLE 21— EDUCATION & TRAINING.....................................................18 Section 21.1 — Employer Initiated Training Section 21.2 — Employee Initiated Training Section 21.3 -- Fire Science and Advanced Life Support ARTICLE 22 — UNIFORM / PROTECTIVE CLOTHING...................................20 Section 22.1 — Provisions and Maintenance Section 22.2 — Quantity Provided to Each Employee Section 22.3 — Replacement 2016 - 2417 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 3 Page 300 of 336 Section 22.4 -- Routine Safety Equipment Inspections Section 22.5 — Cleaning Section C. Wages ARTICLE23 — WAGES...............................................................................20 Section 23.1 — 2016 Section 23.2 — 2017 Section 23.3 — Incentive Pay Section 23.4 — Continuous Service Pay Section 23.5 — Battalion Chief Pay Section 23.6 — Captain Pay Section 23.7 — Lieutenant Pay Section 23.8 — Paramedic Pay Section 23.9 — Firefighter Pay Steps Section 23.10 — Adjusted. Hourly Rate of Pay Section 23.11 — Deferred Compensation ARTICLE 24 — OVERTIME PAY..................................................................22 Section 24.1— Pre Scheduled Overtime Section 24.2 — Time Paid Section 24.3 — Call Back Pay Section 24.4 — Off Duty Events Section 24.5 — Overtime Rates Section 24.6 — Exceptions ARTICLE 25 — WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION...................................23 ARTICLE 26 — BILINGUAL INCENTIVE PAY................................................23 ARTICLE 27 — HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCENTIVE PAY ........................... 23 ARTICLE 28 — OFFICER / PARAMEDIC INCENTIVE PAY...............................24 Section D, Hours/Working Conditions/Rules ARTICLE 29 — HOURS............................................................................24 Section 29.1 — Shifts and Work Periods Section 29.2 — Kelly Days Section 29.3 — New Hires — Special Scheduling Section 29.4 — Time Off Approvals Section 29.5 — Productivity Emergency Stand-by Schedule ARTICLE 30 — SHIFT REASSIGNMENT.......................................................25 ARTICLE 31— SHIFT EXCHANGE.................................................................25 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 4 Page 301 of 336 ARTICLE 32 — VACANCIES 1 PROMOTIONS..................................................26 Section 32.1 — Temporary Upgrade — Battalion Chief Section 32.2 — Temporary Upgrade — Captain Section 32.3 — Temporary Upgrade — Lieutenant ARTICLE 33 — STATION BIDDING..............................................................27 ARTICLE 34 — PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES.............................................28 ARTICLE 35 — PARAMEDIC PERSONNEL....................................................28 ARTICLE 36 — INTER -FACILITY TRANSPORTS...........................................29 Section 36.1 Section 36.2 — Current Practice Section 36.3 - Negotiations ARTICLE 37 — STAFF MEETINGS................................................................30 Section 37.1 — Regular Meeting Section 37.2 — Decisions Regarding Department Operations Section 37.3 — Off Duty Employees Required to Attend ARTICLE 38 — RULES AND REGULATIONS...................................................30 ARTICLE 39 — WORK REQUIREMENTS.......................................................30 ARTICLE 40 — TOBACCO USE...................................................................30 ARTICLE 41— SUBSTANCE FREE WORK PLACE.........................................31 ARTICLE 42— OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT.....................................................31 ARTICLE 43 -- PHYSICAL FITNESS..............................................................31 Section 43.1 — Goals and Testing Section 43.2 — Time Section 43.3 — Place Section 43.4 -- Physical Exam Section 43.5 — Physical Fitness Activities Section 43.6 — Record of Employee Participation Section 43.7 — Rules and Regulations / Safety Precautions ARTICLE 44 — PERSONNEL REDUCTION.....................................................33 Section 44.1 — Reductions Re -Employment Section 44.2 — Seniority Defined Section 44.3 — Seniority Listing 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 5 Page 302 of 336 ARTICLE 45 — DISCIPLINE.........................................................................33 Section 45.1 — Just Cause Section 45.2 --- Progressive Discipline ARTICLE 46 — 40-HOURIWEEK UNIFORMED FIRE PERSONNEL...................34 Section 46.1 Section 46.2 Section 46.3 Section 46.4 Section 46.5 Section 46.6 Section 46.7 Section 46.8 — Vacation Cash Out ARTICLE 47 — MODIFIED DUTY................................................................35 ARTICLE 48 WSCFF MEDICAL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT PLAN (MERP).36 ARTICLE 49 — EMERGENTY CALLBACK PAGERS........................................37 ARTICLE 50 — D SHIFT..................................................................................37 SIGNATURE SHEET.................................................................................39 APPENDIX "A" — HOURLY WAGE RATES APPENDIX "B" — PHYSICAL FITNESS APPENDIX "C" — SUBSTANCE FREE WORK PLACE APPENDIX "D" — NOTIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 6 Page 303 of 336 2016-2017 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT between CITY OF PASCO and LOCAL #1433, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the City of Pasco, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the Employer and its Fire Department, and Local No. 1433 of the International Association of Firefighters, hereinafter referred to as the Union. ARTICLE I — RECOGNITION Section 1.1 — Union Recognized. The City recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent, for the purpose of establishing wages, hours and condition of employment, as authorized by the Washington Public Labor Relations Act, for all full-time, regular, provisional or temporary Fire Department employees in LEOFF classifications, with the exception of the Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief. Said employees shall be covered by Civil Service as provided by RCW 41.08.050. Section 1.2 — Negotiations. The City, for the life of this agreement, agrees not to negotiate with any other employee organization or its representative on matters pertaining to wages, hours or conditions of employment for the employees represented by the Union as stated in this Article. Section 1.3 — Classifications. If the City creates a new job classification and if the new classification is a successor title to a classification covered by the agreement and the job duties are not significantly altered or changed, the new classification shall automatically become a part of this Agreement. If the new classification contains a significant part of the work now being done by any of the classifications covered by this Agreement, or if functions are similar to employees in this bargaining unit, and the Union notifies the City of a desire to meet within ten (10) days of its receipt of the City's notice, the parties will then meet to review the proposed classification and, if unable to reach agreement as to its inclusion or exclusion from the unit, shall submit the question to the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission. If the inclusion of the proposed classification is agreed to by the parties or found appropriate by the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission, the parties shall then negotiate as to proper pay for the classification, the city being free to assign a temporary rate pending the resolution of negotiations. ARTICLE 2 — TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be effective January 1, 2016 and shall remain in full force and effect through the 31" day of December, 2017. 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 7 Page 304 of 336 ARTICLE 3 — UNION SECURITY/PAYROLL DEDUCTION Section 3.1 Assessment — Exception. Any present employee of the Pasco Fire Department or any future employee in the Pasco Fire Department coming within the classifications covered by this Agreement shall pay the Union a monthly assessment as a contribution toward the administration of this Agreement which shall be equivalent to the regular monthly dues of the Union, except under circumstances of objection based upon bona fide religious beliefs. Said employee shall mare the same contribution to a charitable organization as agreed upon jointly between the Local #1433 and the employee. Section 3.2 Payroll Deductions. The City will deduct membership dues and any assessments from all employees of the department covered under this Agreement, upon the receipt by the City of a signed payroll deduction from each respective employee. The membership dues and assessments shall be equal for all of said employees and the City shall pay the same monthly dues or assessments withheld to the Secretary/Treasurer of said Local No. 1433. Further, the City will submit a monthly accounting of said deductions, giving the amount deducted opposite the employee's name. The City will also deduct the monthly sum for LEOFF II disability insurance premiums for each employee who has submitted a signed request for payroll deduction. Such deduction shall be remitted by the City to the Secretary/Treasurer of Local No. 1433 with the dues deduction. The disability insurance deduction is a fixed monthly amount for each employee for whom the deduction is taken, not a percentage of their pay. Section 3.3 Hold Harmless. The Union shall indemnify, defend, and save harmless the Employer against any and all claims, demands, suits or other forms of liability (monetary or otherwise) and for all legal costs that shall arise out of or by reason of action taken or not taken by the employer in complying with the provisions of this Article. ARTICLE 4 — DISCRIMINATION Section 4.1 No Discrimination. There shall be no discrimination against any employees because of Union membership or non -Union membership. In accordance with applicable law, neither the employer nor the Union shall discriminate against any employee covered by this Agreement because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, marital status or disability, except in the instance where age, sex, or absence of a disability may constitute a bona fide occupational qualification under applicable law. Whenever a male gender word is used in this Agreement it shall be construed to include male and female employees. ARTICLE 5 — UNION BUSINESS Any employee elected or appointed to a Union position which occasionally requires his absence, may, upon request of the Union, receive leave of absence for such activity. It is agreed that any employee exercising this leave of absence will be permitted to arrange for qualified replacements at no costs to the City. An employee requesting a leave of absence under this Article shall furnish 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 8 Page 305 of 336 the Fire Chief with written notice from the Union President why the employee's absence is required to attend the Union function. ARTICLE b — LEGISLATIVE COST INCREASES Should the Washington State Legislature enact legislation benefiting employees or immediate families of employees covered by this Agreement, where the effect is to increase costs to the City above those which exists at the time this Agreement is executed, the Union agrees to enter into negotiations with the City, if requested, to negotiate the impact of the change. ARTICLE 7 — PREVAILING RIGHTS All rights and privileges held by the employees at the present time, which are not included in this Agreement and which do not conflict with any provision of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. ARTICLE 8 — MANAGEMENT RIGHTS The Union recognizes the exclusive right and prerogative of the City to make and implement decisions with respect to the operation and management of the Fire Department. Provided, however, that the exercise of any and all these rights shall not conflict with any provision of this Agreement. Such rights include but are not limited to the following: 1. To establish the qualifications for employment and to employ employees. 2. To establish the makeup of the Fire Department's work force and make changes from time to time, including the number and kinds of classifications, and direct the work force toward the organizational goals established by the City. The right to determine its mission, policies, and all standards of service offered to the public. 4. To plan, direct, schedule, control and determine the operations or services to be conducted by the employees of the Pasco Fire Department and City. 5. To determine the means, methods and number of personnel needed to carry out the departmental operations and services. 6. To approve and schedule all vacations and other employee leaves. 7. To hire and assign or transfer employees within the Department or fire -related functions. 8. To lay off any employees from duty due to insufficient funds. 9. To introduce and use new or improved methods, equipment or facilities. 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 9 Page 306 of 336 10. To assign work to and schedule employees. 11. To take whatever action necessary to carry out the mission of the City in emergencies. 12. To determine the department budget. Any employee within the bargaining unit, who may feel aggrieved by the unfair or discriminatory exercise of any of the management rights specified above, may seek his remedy by the Grievance Procedure provided for in this Agreement. ARTICLE 9 — GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE Section 9.1 Procedure Steps. Disputes regarding the interpretation of this Agreement shall be handled in the following manner: Step 1: The Union shall formally submit grievances in writing to the Fire Chief or his designee. Such submission shall state the factual basis for the grievance, the provision or provisions of the Agreement allegedly violated, and the remedy requested. Grievances which are not filed within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the alleged violation shall be deemed waived for all purposes. The Fire Chief or designee shall convene a Step 1 meeting within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the grievance. Attendance at such meeting may include appropriate supervisors, a Union representative and the individual grievant. The Fire Chief or designee shall render a decision in writing to the Union within fourteen (14) calendar days after the conclusion of the Step 1 meeting. Step 2: The decision of the Fire Chief may be appealed in writing to the City Manager within seven (7) calendar days of its receipt. The City Manager shall review the facts, convene a meeting with the parties, and shall issue in writing the final decision of the employer within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this Step 2 appeal. Step 3: Disputes remaining unresolved shall be submitted to arbitration within thirty (30) calendar days of the Step 2 answer of the employer. The arbitrator shall be selected from a list of seven (7) requested from the Northwest FMCS Arbitrator pool. Selection shall be made by alternative striking, with the party requesting the arbitration striking first. Only grievances which involve an alleged violation by the employer or a specific article or provision of the Agreement and which are presented to the employer in writing during the term of this Agreement and which are processed in the manner and within the time limits herein provided shall be subject to arbitration. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties. Provided, however, no arbitrator shall have the authority to render a decision or award which modifies, adds to, subtracts from, changes or amends any term or condition of this Agreement; further provided, a rendition of a decision or award shall be in writing within thirty (30) calendar days of the close of the hearing (or submission date of written briefs) and shall include a statement of the reasoning and grounds upon which such decision or award is based. 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 10 Page 307 of 336 The cost of the arbitration shall be born equally by both parties, including arbitrator's fees and expenses, room rental and cost of record. Each party shall bear the cost of the preparation of its own case. Section 9.2 Non -Compliance With Time Limits. Failure of the aggrieved employee to comply with the time limits set forth above will serve to declare the grievance is settled based upon the last answer received and no further action can be taken. The time limits set forth herein may be extended by mutual agreement. Section 9.3 Exceptions To Grievance Procedure. Any grievance which is not filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.1 of this Article is not subject to the grievance procedures of this Agreement. Section 9.4 Election Of Remedies/Waiver. The taking of a grievance through arbitration constitutes an election of remedies and a waiver, where lawful, of all rights to litigate or otherwise contest the appealed subject matter in any court or other available form. Likewise, litigation or the contest of the grievance subject matter in any court or other form shall constitute an election of remedies and a waiver of right to arbitrate the matter. ARTICLE 10 — SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT This Agreement may be amended, provided both parties concur. Supplemental agreements may be completed through negotiations at any time during the life of this Agreement. Either party may notify the other party, in writing, of its desire to negotiate. Supplemental agreements, thus completed, will be signed by the responsible Union and City officials. Supplemental agreements thus completed shall become a part of the larger agreement and subject to all its provisions. The parties agree that this Agreement constitutes all agreements with regard to wages, hours and working conditions, and any and all negotiable items. This Agreement shall be amended only upon mutual agreement of the parties. ARTICLE 11— PERFORMANCE OF DUTY — NO STRIKE AGREEMENT It is agreed that employees shall not plan, promote or be part of a strike, slowdown, sit-down, or other stoppage of work which would reduce the effectiveness of the City in any way. ARTICLE 12 — SAVINGS CLAUSE If any provisions of this Agreement or the application of such provisions should be rendered or declared invalid by any court action or by reason of any existing or subsequently enacted legislation, the remaining parts or portions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Any provisions declared invalid would be subject to re -negotiation by the parties. ARTICLE 13 — FIRE CODE ENFORCEMENT Bargaining unit work concerned with and related to the enforcement of the Uniform Fire Code has been transferred outside of the bargaining unit at the discretion of the employer. 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters -- Page 11 Page 308 of 336 ARTICLE 14 — VACATIONS Section 14.1 Accrual. Employees working twenty-four (24) hour shifts shall accrue vacation credit at the rate of six (6) hours per pay period. Upon, completion of five (5) years of continuous service, each employee shall accrue seven (7) hours per pay period. Upon completion of ten (10) years of continuous service, each employee shall accrue vacation credit at eight (8) hours per pay period. Upon completion of fifteen (15) years of continuous service, each employee shall accrue vacation credit at the rate of nine (9) hours per pay period. Upon completion of twenty (20) years of continuous service, each employee shall accrue vacation credit at the rate of ten (10) hours per pay period. Section 14.2 Vacation and Holiday Scheduling. Vacation shall be scheduled to be taken at any time from January I" to December 31'. Preference shall be given to personnel with the greatest seniority by rank provided operational requirements are met. Leave of absence over accrued vacation time may be granted by the Fire Chief with approval of the City Manager. In addition, the following shall apply to the scheduling of both vacation and holiday time off: a. Minimum Time. Leave shall be taken for a minimum of two (2) consecutive hours. b. Long Term Time Off: Employees shall be eligible to request long term time off (at least three (3) full shifts) anytime throughout the calendar year. Long term time -off requests shall have preference over shorter -term requests for time -off; c. Short Term Time Off. Employees requesting time -off that is at least one full shift but less than three full shifts shall be eligible to make such requests at any time within sixty (60) days of the requested time -off. Short term time -off requests shall have preference over time -off requests of less than a complete shift. d. Less Than Complete Shift. Employees shall be eligible to apply for time -off requests using less than twenty-four (24) hours at any time within forty-five (45) days of the requested time -off. e. Additional Preferences, Preference in multiple requests for time -off of otherwise equal duration shall be given to an employee with the greater seniority by rank, provided operational requirements are met and the less senior employee will not suffer unreasonable hardship due to commitments (financial or otherwise) previously made following the granting of their earlier submitted request. Section 14.3 Usage/Maximum Accrual. Normally, employees will be required to take annual vacation. Employees shall be permitted to accumulate vacation time equal to the amount which can be earned in two (2) years at the applicable accrual rate. Time not taken which causes accrual beyond two (2) full years will be lost to the employee unless, in the case of unique hardship, an extension may be approved by the City Manager. Normally, employees will not take more than one and one-half (1-1/2) years accumulation in any one year; however, the City Manager may authorize longer leave in special cases. 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No, 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 12 Page 309 of 336 Section 14.4 Separation From Service. Employees shall be granted pay in lieu of accrued vacation leave at their adjusted hourly rate of pay at such time as they are separated from City employment unless such separation is made during entrance probation periods. Section 14.5 Vacation. Cash Out. Employees entering their second (2nd) year of continuous service may cash out up to ninety-six (96) hours of vacation in April or December (total combination) each year. In order for vacation hours to be paid in April and/or December, the employee must submit a written request to the Chief at least two (2) weeks prior to the first payday in April and/or December. ARTICLE 15 — SICK LEAVE Section 15.1 Accrual. All twenty-four (24) hour shift employees covered by this Agreement shall earn nine (9) hours of sick leave per pay period. Sick leave may be accumulated to a maximum of eight hundred and forty (840) hours for LEOFF I employees and one thousand four hundred forty (1,440) hours for LEOFF II employees. Any employee using more than forty-eight (48) successive hours of sick leave shall apply for disability leave and retain the services of a physician. The City may, at its discretion, require an employee who has taken ninety-six (96) or more hours of sick leave in any year to submit to a physician's verification of illness or injury (medical exam) for any illness or injury immediately preceding or following a paid leave day (holiday, personal, vacation day, etc.) or when there exists cause to believe that there may be sick leave abuse. If it is a family member who is sick, the employer may require a doctor's verification of the illness. Further, a statement by an attending physician may be required by the City from an employee who utilizes more than ninety-six (96) hours of sick leave in a calendar year. Upon separation from the Department, twenty-five percent (25%) of all unused sick leave, to a maximum of eight hundred and forty (840) hours, shall be paid at the prevailing hourly rate to employees with less than twenty (20) years of service. Upon separation from the Department, fifty percent (50%) of all unused sick leave, to a maximum of eight hundred and forty (840) hours, shall be paid at the prevailing hourly rate to employees with twenty (20) years or more of service. Section 15.2 LEOFF I Disability Leave. The firefighters will have the protection of either the provisions of sick leave in this Article of the contract, or the disability provisions of LEOFF I. If the leave is of a long-term duration and if the LEOFF I provisions are reasonably available, applications must be made to the LEOFF I system. In such situations where benefits are not available under the LEOFF I system, sick leave provisions of this Article may be utilized. Section 15.3 LEOFF II Employees. Upon initial employment, LEOFF II employees shall be credited four hundred and twenty-three (423) hours of sick leave and no additional sick leave shall accrue through the forty-seventh (47u') pay period of the employee's service with the City. Thereafter, commencing with the forty-eight (48a') pay period, such employee shall accrue sick leave at the rate of nine (9) hours per pay period. Should a LEOFF II employee terminate with a sick leave deficit (more hours used than would have been earned during the period of service), the 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 13 Page 310 of 336 City shall be reimbursed out of other employee earnings. In addition, no sick leave buy-back shall apply unless the net hours would have accrued during the period of service. Section 15.4 LEUFF Benefit Changes. In the event the LEOFF I or LEOFF II benefits are increased or decreased by the legislature, the City and Union retain the right to open negotiations regarding the provisions of this Article. Section 15.5 Illness of Family Members. 1. In the event of a serious illness/injury in the immediate family of the employee, the employee, at his request, shall be granted time off utilizing earned sick leave time. Immediate family shall be defined as the spouse of the employee and his or her mother and father. 2. Accumulated sick leave may be used to care for a child of the employee under the age of eighteen (18) years of age with a health condition that requires treatment or supervision. "Health condition that requires treatment or supervision" means:. (a) Any medical condition that requires medication that the child cannot self -medicate. (b) Any medical or mental health condition that would endanger the child's safety or recovery without the presence of a parent or guardian; or (c) Any condition warranting preventative health care, such as physical, dental, optical or immunization services, when a parent must be present to authorize treatment and when sick leave may otherwise be used for the employee's preventative health care. (d) Sub -sections (b) and (c) above are not intended to include medical or mental health conditions which could adequately be supervised by a child's regular daycare provider. (e) When both the employee and their spouse are employed and eligible for the family sick leave benefits under Chapter 49.12 RCW, the employee shall use reasonable efforts to annually equalize the use of the family sick leave benefit between the employee and the employee's spouse. The employer may deny the use of this family sick leave benefit who does not exercise such reasonable efforts. (f) Any employee shall return to work and complete his regular shift assignment as soon as the reason justifying the use of this family sick leave provision no longer exists, whether due to betterment of the child's condition, completion of any required health care services, completion of a spouse work day, or other reason justifying the use of family sick leave. "Child of the employee " means any child under the age of eighteen (18) years of age, who is: (1) The natural offspring of the employee. (2) The adopted child of the employee. 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 14 Page 311 of 336 (3) The natural or adopted child of the employee's spouse; or (4) Under the employee's legal guardianship, legal custody, or foster care. Section 15.6 Notification and Reporting. Notification of absence due to sickness shall be given to the Fire Chief or his designee as soon as possible on the first day of such absence and every day thereafter (unless this requirement is waived by the Chief) in as far in advance of the scheduled work as possible. Generally, this report shall be made no later than one (1) hour before the start of a shift. The notification must include the reason for the taking of the sick leave, including the nature of the illness or injury and the general symptoms experienced. Failure to promptly report an illness or injury may be considered an absence without pay and may subject the employee to discipline as well. Section 15.7 Family and Medical Leave Act. The requirements of the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act will be administered as set forth in City Administrative Order No. 231 originated November 22, 1993: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, nothing therein shall reduce any leave or payroll benefit otherwise provided for in this Agreement. ARTICLE 16 — SICK LEAVE BUY BACK Local #1433 and the City of Pasco agree that LEOFF 11 members may purchase, at their option and at no cost to the City of Pasco, supplemental disability insurance coverage through agreement with the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters and Local #1433. LEOFF Il members on extended sick/disability leave may apply to the insurance carrier of this plan for benefits as provided under the plan, currently thirty (30) consecutive days of leave. The Local and the City agree that any employee who receives benefit payments under this plan will keep these benefit payments and use a minimum of twenty-four (24) hours accrued leave per pay period to supplement the benefit, if not working modified duty equal to twenty-four (24) hours per pay period. The member can elect to be in a leave without pay status for the balance of the pay period. Accrued leave used during the disability period will be reported to the Department of Retirement Systems (DRS) as hours worked and therefore, are eligible for service credits. ARTICLE 17 — HOLIDAY PAY Section 17.1 Holidays. The following and other such days as the City Council, by Resolution, may fix are official holidays for all employees of the department: HOLIDAY DATE New Year's Day January 1St Martin Luther King's Birthda 3'd Monday in Janu Presidents' Day 3'd Monday in February Memorial Day Last Monday in May Independence Day Jul 4a' Labor Da 1St Monday in S tember Veterans' Day November 11 h 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 15 Page 312 of 336 Thanksgiving Day e Thursday in November Day after Thanksgiving Da 4"' Friday in November Christmas Day December 25a' Personal Holiday ** I' January paycheck **Newly hired probationary employees will earn their first (1) Personal Holiday on the first (ls) full pay period after the completion of probation. Section 17.2 Accrual/Utilization. All twenty-four (24) hour shift personnel covered by this Agreement shall earn twelve (12) hours of time for each holiday, which shall be utilized as follows: (a) Eighty-four (84) hours per year will be cashed out at the employee's adjusted hourly rate of pay and each employee will have the option of using or cashing out (or a combination thereof) the remaining forty-eight (48) hours. Zero (0) hours carry-over. (b) Cash -out of time shall occur on either or both (to the extent of holiday hours actually earned or accrued prior to such date) the first paycheck in April or on the first paycheck in December at the employee's adjusted hourly rate of pay. In order for holiday time to be paid in April, the employee must submit a written request to the Chief at least two (2) weeks prior to the first payday in April. The December payment shall be made automatically by the employer. The cut-off date for scheduling of holiday time usage shall be the first day of the pay period for the first payday in December. Holiday hours not schedule or paid in April for the year by that day shall be cashed out by the City at the employee's adjusted hourly rate of pay the first payday in December. For rules regarding the scheduling of Holiday time off see Section 14.2 ARTICLE 18 — BEREAVEMENT In the event of a death in the immediate family of an employee, the employee shall be granted up to forty-eight (48) hours of leave from scheduled work with pay. Additional leave for such purpose may be taken and charged to other earned leave upon authorization of the Fire Chief Documentation for need of such leave shall be provided when required by the City. Immediate family for these purposes should be defined as follows: spouse and children, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings of the employee and his/her spouse. ARTICLE 19 — MEDICAL/DENTALNISION INSURANCE Section 19.1 Employee Medical Wellness/Preventive Coverage. The City will provide medical insurance coverage for LEOFF I and LEOFF II employees who will be covered by a plan providing for no deductible, one hundred percent (100%) coverage. Section 19.2 Employee Prescription Coverage. The City will provide prescription insurance coverage for LEOFF I and LEOFF II employees who will be covered by a plan providing for no deductible, one hundred percent (100%) coverage of eligible expenses. The employee will not be required to pay for any prescription costs at time of prescription pickup. Employee pays zero percent (0%), one hundred percent (100%) coverage. 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 16 Page 313 of 336 Section 19.3 Employee Dental Coverage. The City will provide dental insurance coverage for LEOFF I and LEOFF II Employees who will be covered by a plan providing one hundred percent (100%) coverage of Class 1 expenses (i.e., covered diagnostic and preventive care), eighty percent (80%) coverage of Class 2 expenses and fifty percent (50%) coverage for Class 3 expenses. The maximum annual benefit for dental expenses is one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) per employee. The dental coverage shall be subject to a maximum twenty-five dollar ($25.00) deductible per person: per calendar year to a maximum of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per family; provided the dental deductibles shall not apply to covered Class 1 expenses and shall apply to the medical deductible limitation established in sections 19.5 and 19.6. Section 19.4 Employee Vision Coverage. The City will provide vision insurance coverage for LEOFF I and LEOFF II employees who will be covered by a plan providing for a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) co -pay every plan year. Employee coverage will include a wellness exam every plan year; prescription lenses every plan year, frames every other plan year, (or) contact lens care every plan year. In addition employees will receive extra discounts and savings on glasses, sunglasses, contacts, laser vision correction. (See attached VSP benefit summary) Section 19.5 Dependent Medical Wellness/Preventive Coverage. The City will provide medical insurance coverage for dependents of LEOFF I and LEOFF II employees who will be covered by a plan providing for a two hundred dollar ($200.00) deductible per person per calendar year, to a maximum of six hundred dollars ($600.00) deductible per covered family per calendar year. Dependent coverage will be an eighty/twenty percent (80% / 20%) co-insurance which applies to all covered expenses incurred. In accordance with the Health Plan, Wellness/Preventive care benefits may not be subject to the eighty/twenty percent (80%/20%) co-insurance or deductible. Section 19.6 Dependent Prescription Coverage. The City will provide prescription insurance coverage for dependents of LEOFF I and LEOFF II employees. Dependent coverage will be an eighty/twenty percent (80% / 20%) co-insurance which applies to all covered expenses incurred. Dependents will only be required to pay their portion (20%) of the prescription costs at time of prescription pickup. Section 19.7 Dependent Dental Coverage. The City will provide dental insurance coverage for dependents of LEOFF I and LEOFF II employees who will be covered by a plan providing one hundred percent (100%) coverage of Class 1 expenses (i.e., covered diagnostic and preventive care), eighty percent (80%) coverage of Class 2 expenses and fifty percent (50% coverage for Class 3 expenses. The maximum annual benefit for dental expenses is one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) per dependent. The dental coverage shall be subject to a maximum twenty-five dollar ($25.00) deductible per person per calendar year to a maximum of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per family; provided the dental deductibles shall not apply to covered Class 1 expenses and shall apply to the medical deductible limitation established in section 19.5 and 19.6. Section 19.8 Dependent Vision Coverage. The City will provide vision insurance coverage for dependents of LEOFF I and LEOFF II employees who will be covered by a plan providing for a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) co -pay every plan year. Dependent coverage will include a wellness exam every plan year, prescription lenses every plan year, frames every other plan year, (or) 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 17 Page 314 of 336 contact lens care every plan year. In addition, dependents will receive extra discounts and savings on glasses, sunglasses, contacts, laser vision correction. (See attached VSP benefit summary.) Section. 19.9 The City agrees to provide a Medical/Dental/Vision Insurance plan that is equal to or better than the plans currently in effect. The City retains the right to maintain a self-insurance program or to select insurance carriers for the purpose of containing premium rate increases. Section 19.10 Each employee (except LEOFF I employees without dependents) will pay two point five zero percent (2.50%) of the top step Firefighter classification base monthly wage toward the monthly assessment for said Medical/Dental Insurance. Vision coverage premium covered by the city. Section 19.11 Nothing in this article reduces benefits that the employee and/or their dependents have a right to under State and/or Federal legislation. Section 19.12 Re -opener Due to State or Federal Legislation. Notwithstanding the above, in the event State or Federal legislation required the City to make changes in the group medical benefits provided employees during the life of this agreement, the City reserves the right to make required changes; provided, however, the City provides the bargaining representative with, at least, thirty (30) days' advance notice of the change(s) and, further provided, that either the City or the Union may require that this article be reopened in negotiations if the change(s) result in a reduction of benefits or an increase (by at least ten percent) in the then existing premium paid for an employee, his/her spouse and dependents by providing the other with written notice within fourteen (14) days receipt by the bargaining representative of the notice from the City of the proposed change(s). ARTICLE 20 -- GROUP TERM LIFE INSURANCE The City agrees to provide group term life insurance coverage for employees in the current group term life insurance plan provided by the City as a benefit to its employees city-wide, or its equivalent, with face -value coverage of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) for each employee. ARTICLE 21— EDUCATION & TRAINING Section 21.1 -Employer Initiated Training. Is training directly related to the employee's job if it is intended to help the employee learn, maintain., or improve any job functions and/or activities more effectively, that the employee is expected or could be expected to perform at their current job. Or, any training that is desired by the city for the employee's current job functions and/or activities. The following shall apply to Employer Initiated Training; a. Education/Training must be approved by the Fire Chief or his designee. b. Actual costs of books, fees, tuition, registration, or any other costs shall be covered by the City. 2016 _ 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters -- Page 18 Page 315 of 336 C. Employce(s) shall receive overtime compensation as per Article 24 for all actual hours in class/training and travel time outside their regular scheduled shift/hours. d. If the training duration is of multiple days and over fifty (50) miles away from the Tri -Cities metropolitan area, the employce(s) attending training shall be backfilled to cover their regular scheduled shift as needed to meet staffing levels. Employee(s) shall receive per diem for mileage, meals, and lodging based on the Standard Federal Rate, for the specific travel destination. e. If the training is less than fifty (50) miles away from the Tri -Cities metropolitan area employee(s) attending training shall be backfilled to cover their regular scheduled hours for training and travel time as needed to meet staffing levels. Employee(s) shall receive per diem for mileage and meals based on the Standard Federal Rate, for the specific travel destination. Normally the employee(s) will be expected to return to work after their education/training for the day has concluded. £ The Fire Chief or his designee may deem it unsafe to travel back from training for any reason including but not limited to weather and road conditions, time of day travel is to take place, etc. In cases where the Fire Chief or his designee deems it unsafe to travel, the employee(s) attending training shall be backfilled to cover their regular scheduled shift/hours as needed to meet staffing levels. Employees) shall receive per diem for lodging based on the Standard Federal Rate, for the specific travel destination in addition to per diem mentioned in paragraph (e) above. Section 21.2 - Employee Initiated Training — Employee initiated training is training sought by an employee for the purpose of preparing for advancement, and is not intended to maintain or improve their current job functions and/or activities. The department supports professional development for its members and may elect to support the employee's requests to attend Employee Initiated Training in one (1) or more ways as provided for Employer Initiated Training. The determination of any support will be subject to seniority, financial resources, and department staffing needs. Section 21.3 — Fire Science and Advanced Life Support. Employees shall be eligible for reimbursement for the actual cost of books, fees, and tuition and the payment of per diem for courses in fire science or advanced life support. A grade of "C" or better must be obtained if it is a graded course, or a certificate of completion be issued to an employee in a non -graded course. a. Employees intending to take classes in fire science shall submit a letter of intent to do so by June 1St, prior to the year seeking reimbursement. b. Paramedics shall be eligible for overtime pay for actual hours in attendance at no more than one (1) meeting per month called by the physician advisor, subject to approval of the Fire Chief; however, no call out pay shall be required. 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and LocaI No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters -- Page 19 Page 316 of 336 c. Paramedics shall be eligible for off duty overtime for attendance at courses that are required by the regional Medical Program Director (MPD) and approved by the Fire Chief. Such training will be allowed "on duty" if response status and/or manpower allows. No call back pay shall be required. ARTICLE 22 — UNIFORMIPROTECTIVE CLOTHING ARTICLES Section 22.1 Provisions and Maintenance. All uniforms, protective clothing, or protective devices required for employees in the performance of their duties shall be furnished to the employees by the City. The cleaning of safety clothing shall be accomplished on duty or by the City through commercial facilities. The cleaning of daily duty uniforms shall be the responsibility of the employer. Section 22.2 Quantity Provided to Each Employee. In the first year of employment, five (5) sets of daily uniforms will be furnished to each employee. Thereafter, one (1) uniform per year will be purchased as needed to maintain uniform appearance. Winter coats and cold weather gear will be purchased and replaced by the City as conditions warrant. The employer will maintain on hand "throw -away" coveralls for the use of employees as conditions warrant. Section 22.3 Replacement. Equipment and/or clothing lost, stolen, destroyed, or damaged in the line of duty, and without negligence on the part of the employee, will be replaced by the City without cost or charge to the employee. Clothing and equipment provided by the City shall be purchased and maintained with regard to employee's health and safety. Section 22.4 Routine Safety Equipment Inspections. Safety equipment will be inspected and maintained to meet vertical standards of safety and operational conditions. Section 22.5 Cleaning. Exercise clothing consisting of T-shirts and shorts shall be provided and laundered by the employer. Employees shall provide and launder off the work premises their own socks, athletic shoes, under clothing and personal equipment. ARTICLE 23 — WAGES Section 23.1 2016. Effective the first full pay period of January 2016, the base hourly wage rate for top -step firefighter under this agreement shall increase by two percent (2%). Section 23.2 2017. Effective the first full pay period of January 2017, the base hourly wage rate for top -step firefighter under this Agreement shall increase by one point seven five percent (1.75%). Section 23.3 Incentive Pay. Upon ratification 2016, Employees may only receive incentive pay up to a maximum of six percent (6%). Technical Rescue Technician (TRT) includes multiple disciplines which shall receive two (2%) for each certification, up to a maximum of six percent (6%). TRT 2% of top -step firefighter 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between. City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 20 Page 317 of 336 Hazlvlat 2% of top -step firefighter SCBA Technician 2% of top -step firefighter Communications Technician 2% of top -step firefighter Bilingual (certified) (See article 26 — Bilingual Pay) Fire Investigator 2% of top -step firefighter Public Fire Educator 2% of top -step firefighter — I per shift Personal Protective Equip 2% of top -step firefighter — Effective I' full pay period of 2016 Section 23.4 Continuous Service Pay. Continuous service pay shall be computed on the individual employee's hourly rate of pay at two percent (2%) after ten (10) years of continuous service with the department, three percent (3%0) after fifteen (15) years of continuous service with the department; four percent (4%) after twenty (20) years of continuous service with the department; and five percent (5%) after twenty-five (25) years of continuous service with the department. Section 23.5 Battalion Chief Pay. The base hourly rate of pay for the Battalion Chief position shall be maintained at twenty-five (25%) above top -step firefighter. Section 23.6 Captain Pay. The base hourly rate of pay for the Captain position shall be maintained at fifteen percent (15%) above top -step firefighter. Section 23.7 Lieutenant Pay. The base hourly rate of pay for the Lieutenant position shall be maintained at ten percent (10%) above top -step firefighter. Section 23.8 Paramedic Pay. The base hourly rate of pay for the paramedic position shall be maintained at ten percent (10%) above the firefighter step s/he falls under. Section 239 Firefighter Pay Steps. All firefighter pay steps will be figured on a percentage of top -step firefighter. Step 1 firefighter Step 2 firefighter Step 3 firefighter Step 4 firefighter Step 5 firefighter 0 — 12 months 80% of top -step firefighter 13 — 24 months 85% of top -step firefighter 25 — 36 months 90% of top -step firefighter 37 — 48 months 95% of top -step firefighter 49+ months 100% of top -step firefighter Lateral hires for Firefighter and Paramedic shall start at pay Step 3 — 25 months. Section 23.10 Adjusted Hourly Rate of Pay. Adjusted hourly rate of pay, when used in this agreement, means the employee's base hourly rate of pay plus incentives and continuous service pay. Section 23.11 Deferred Compensation. Effective sixty (60) days after ratification 2016. Each bargaining unit member shall be paid a deferred compensation contribution as provided below: 2016 — two percent (2%) of base hourly wage. 2017 — additional two percent (2%) of base hourly wage (I' full pay period January 2017). 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 21 Page 318 of 336 This provision is subject to the City's deferred compensation rules and regulations and IRS regulations. The computation of retirement contributions and pension benefits shall be governed by applicable state law. ARTICLE 24 — OVERTIME PAY The City shall administer overtime according to the following provisions: Section 24.1 Pre -Scheduled Overtime. Any pre -scheduled overtime must be approved by the Fire Chief. Any emergency overtime may be approved by the Duty Officer, but only in accordance with departmental regulations. Section 24.2 Time Paid. Time worked to the nearest greater one-half hour beyond an employee's regularly scheduled shift shall be paid at one and one-half times the employee's adjusted hourly rate of pay. The time and one-half shall be paid for all hours worked rounded to the greater half hour. Section 24.3 Call Back Pay. Except as otherwise stated herein below, an employee who is called back to duty from off the station site after his normal shift has ended, but before the scheduled start of his next shift, shall receive the sum of sixty Dollars ($60.00) plus one hour minimum of overtime pay. Section 24.4 Off -Duty Events. Any employee attending a meeting, public function, schooling or training outside his regular shift shall not be eligible for call back pay per subsection 24.3, except when the employee's attendance is required by the administration and the employee has not been given at least seventy-two (72) hours' notice of said function, in which case the employee shall be paid call back pay per subsection 24.3. Section 24.5 Overtime Rates. When it is necessary to hold an employee beyond his regular or exchange shift, he shall be paid at the time and one-half rate and no call-back pay shall apply. In the event coverage is required due to the absence of another employee, as soon as practical either a twelve (I2) or twenty-four (24) hour shift shall be offered to employees in inverse order of accumulated overtime (those with least amount first). However, if an employee is wining to work the full twenty-four (24) hours they shall bump the employee/employees wanting to split the shift. Call-back pay shall not apply when employees work the full twenty-four (24) hours or voluntarily split the twenty-four (24) hour shift. Section 24.6 Exceptions. The City and Local have agreed to the following exceptions of having to first offer overtime to all employees in inverse order of accumulated overtime (those with the lease amount first), in the following two (2) situations: a. In the event coverage is required due to the absence of another employee and there are less than two (2) officers on duty; an Officer/Paramedic counts as an officer on duty. b. In the event coverage is required due to the absence of another employee and there are less than three (3) paramedics on duty; an Officer/Paramedic counts as a paramedic on duty. 2016 - 2017.Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 22 Page 319 of 336 In either of these two situations, as soon as practical, either a twelve (12) or twenty-four (24) hour shift shall be offered to officers and/or paramedics in inverse order of accumulated overtime (those with the least amount first) before having to offer overtime to all employees in inverse order of accumulated overtime (those with the least amount first.) However, if an employee is willing to work the full twenty-four (24) hours they shall bump the employee/employees wanting to split the shift. Call-back pay shall not apply when employees work the full twenty-four (24) hours or voluntarily split the twenty-four (24) hour shift. The City and Local have also agreed that at any time the City reduces the number of officers and/or paramedics on the department below the following levels, this Section 24.6 Exceptions, will be null and void and this contract will revert back to Sections 24.1 through 24.5 only. Battalion Chief — one (1) per shifts A, B, C. Captain --- one (1) per shifts A, B, C for each fire station. Lieutenant — two (2) per shifts A, B, C. Paramedic — six (6) per first run Medic Ambulance. Training Officer — one (1). Medical Officer — one (1). ARTICLE 25 — WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION Any person covered by this Agreement who is required to accept responsibilities in carrying out the duties of position or rank above which they normally hold, shall be paid at the base hourly rate of pay and incentives for that position or rank plus the employee's continuous service pay, or his regular adjusted hourly rate of pay, whichever is higher, while so acting. ARTICLE 26 — BILINGUAL INCENTIVE PAY Bilingual incentive pay shall be paid to any Local member who demonstrates fluency in the Spanish language. Proof of fluency shall be determined by a test approved by the Civil Service Commission. Bilingual incentive shall be two percent (2%) of top -step firefighter. ARTICLE 27 — HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCENTIVE PAY The Union and the City recognize that response to Hazardous Materials incidents and Technical Rescue incidents are basic to the fire service and the duty of a firefighter. The Union and the City also recognize that employees who have received special training at least equivalent to qualify as a "specialist" under the National Fire Protection Association Standard 472 "Professional Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials Incidents" and those who qualify for and are appointed by the Fire Chief to the Technical Rescue Team, who utilize and exercise such training, knowledge and experience in emergency response calls in their work for their department should receive additional compensation. Hazardous Materials and Technical Rescue incentive pay shall be computed as outlined in Article 23 Wages, Section 23.3 Incentive Pay. Hazardous Materials and Technical Rescue Team members shall also be eligible for pay at the individual's overtime rate with no call -out pay, to attend all schedule team drills or classes as required by the Hazardous Materials Team Coordinator or Technical Rescue Team. Coordinator. On duty members of both 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 23 Page 320 of 336 teams shall be allowed to respond when their respective teams are activated and the City will call back personnel, as needed, to backfill their positions. Off duty team members recognize the method of notification for incidents will be by way of cell phone text and will be allowed to respond when their team is activated and will be subject to overtime and call back pay. ARTICLE 28 — OFFICER/PARAMEDIC INCENTIVE PAY Four percent (4%) of base hourly rate shall be paid to any Firefighter/Paramedic, Lieutenant, or Captain who satisfactorily maintains a Washington State Paramedic Certification and performs said duties while in an upgrade position (lieutenant/captain upgrade.) The City shall offer those training benefits listed in Article 21 (Education article) for maintenance of Paramedic Certification. This article does not pertain to the position of Battalion Chief as the Battalion Chief's responsibility is incident commander. ARTICLE 29 — HOURS Section 29.1 Shifts and Work Periods. The duty schedule for Suppression and Paramedic personnel shall consist of a twenty-eight (28) day work period wherein 192, 200, or 208 duty hours are scheduled on a regular, cyclical basis. This averages to a fifty (50) hour duty week. Shifts will commence at 8:00 a.m. and will terminate at 8:00 a.m. the following day. Normally, the cycle will be twenty-four (24) hours on duty followed by forty-eight (48) hours off duty with a Kelly Day (additional shift: off) scheduled during every work period for a total of thirteen (13) annually. Section 29.2 Felly Days. Kelly Days must be taken within the work period earned. The scheduled date of a Kelly Day may be changed provided a request is submitted to the Fire Chief at least forty- eight (48) hours in advance and said request is approved. The Fire Chief shall post the schedule in December for Kelly Days to be taken for the following year. A draft schedule shall first be submitted to the Chief by each shift Battalion Chief following the procedure established by the department rule. Section 29.3 New Hires — Special Scheduling. New hires may be assigned a five (5) day/ten — (10) hour per day work week scheduled during the first two (2) months of employment to facilitate their training. New hires shall receive fourteen (14) days' advance notice of any schedule change. Section 29.4 Time Off Approvals. Employees shall be granted time off at any given time from M shift for Kelly, Vacation Leave, Holiday Leave, or any combination thereof, provided, there is only one (l) employee off per every five (5) employees normally assigned to a shift. Furthermore, this time off role shall not include any employee on sudden sick leave, disability leave bereavement leave civil leave, juEy service or required appearance at legal proceedings due to a work related incident, or an approved leave of absence without pay. Employees Normally 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 Assigned to 24 Hr. Shift Employees Granted 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time Off 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 24 Page 321 of 336 Section 29.5 Productivity Emergency Stand -By Schedule. ©n -duty employees shall maintain a productivity/emergency stand-by schedule. Except as otherwise stated below, productivity time with scheduled work or training shall normally be from 0800 to 1600, with a lunch hour from 1200 to 1300 and fifteen (15) minute breaks in the morning and afternoon. 1600 to 1800 hours Monday through Friday, and 1300 to 1500 hours on Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays, shall normally be for physical fitness as stated in the Physical Fitness Article. 1600 to 1800 hours on Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays, shall normally be for assigned training and work. 1800 to 2000 hours shall be the dinner hour. 2000 to 2200 hours shall be for training (limited to four (4) days in any calendar week and excepting Sundays and holidays if other days in the week are otherwise available). 2200 to 0800 hours shall be considered emergency stand-by time. Exceptions: • Stand-by for emergency medical services at Pasco high schools' athletic events may take place during emergency stand-by time. • Transports as outlined in Article 36 — Inter -Facility Patient Transports may take place during emergency stand-by time. ARTICLE 30— SHIFT REASSIGNMENT The City will cooperate to the extent reasonably possible with the affected employees to minimize or eliminate any loss of hours or benefits due to a shift reassignment initiated by the City, through the use of advance notice, voluntary shift exchanges, working additional hours, or other available means not increasing the wages or benefits that would be paid by the City to the employees had the shift reassignment not occurred. However, any planned shift reassignment for an upcoming year shall normally take place early in the calendar year to facilitate the scheduling and taking of vacations, holiday leave or other long-range time -off benefits. ARTICLE 31 — SHIFT EXCHANGE Employees shall be permitted to change shifts or portions thereof when the change does not interfere with the best interest of the Fire Department and with the approval of the Fire Chief or his designee. Approval of the Fire Chief is contingent upon the employees meeting the following conditions: 1. The exchange is voluntary and upon the written request of the two involved employees. Documentation shall not be required for requests under twelve (12) hours.. 2. The exchange is between individuals of equal rank and/or there will be no increased costs to the City. Paramedics will be permitted to exchange shifts with firefighters provided at least one (1) paramedic per station remains on the regular shift at the time the written request is submitted and approved. For the purpose of this section, it is understood that if it is necessary to call back a paramedic, only a paramedic shall be called back. The paramedic with the lowest overtime hours shall be called first... 3. The time will be paid back within twelve (12) months. 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 25 Page 322 of 336 4. The voluntary request for such change or trade is submitted on the proper form provided by the Fire Chief. ARTICLE 32 — VACANCIES/PROMOTIONS Section 32.1 Temporary Upgrade —Battalion Chief. In the event a twenty-four (24) hour shift Battalion Chief (B/C) is absent from his regular scheduled shift, the position shall be filled within the ranks of the department in the following order. 1) When overtime is being offered for shift manning, per Article 24, going by inverse order of accumulated overtime (those with the least amount first) and the overtime goes to a BIC, who accepts the overtime, they shall fit the open BIC position for full and partial shifts. When overtime is being offered for emergency call-in, per Article 24 above, and the overtime goes to a BIC, who accepts the overtime, the upgrade shall continue to perform as an upgrade B/C in conjunction with the B/C that accepted the emergency overtime. This allows one BIC to focus on the current emergency while the other focuses on the rest of the city. 2) Captain from duty shift with highest score on B/C's Eligibility List. 3) Captain from duty shift by seniority based on time in grade. The senior Captain on duty may turn down the upgrade provided another Captain on duty takes the upgrade. 4) Off duty B/C or Captain in inverse order of accumulated overtime (those with the least amount first). 5) Lieutenant from duty shift with the highest score on the Captain's Eligibility List. Minimum of four (4) years of officer experience. 6) Off duty Lieutenant in inverse order of accumulated overtime (those with the least amount first). Minimum of four (4) years of officer experience. 7) However, in order to work as an upgrade B/C, personnel must have the following, or the equivalent for each: IFSAC FF 1 IFSAC FF 2 IFSAC Fire Officer 1 Hazardous Materials Operations HazMat On Scene IC NFA Incident Safety Officer IS -100, IS -200,1-300 Confined Space Operations Trench Rescue Operations 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 26 Page 323 of 336 It is understood that a firefighter shall not upgrade to acting BIC. To maintain an updated B/C's Eligibility List, a Civil Service examination will be given in even numbered years, to employees within the department with at least twelve (12) years of progressively responsible fire service experience or education, three (3) of which are as a Pasco Fire Captain or to employees who have been on the two (2) most recent and consecutive Captain promotional lists. Employees shall be given a six (6) month notification that a Battalion Chief's Civil Service Examination will be given. Section 32.2 Temporary Upgrade — Captain. In the event a twenty-four (24) hour shift Captain is absent from his regularly scheduled shift, the position shall be filled by a Lieutenant from the duty shift. If no Lieutenant is on duty, see Section 32.3 Temporary Upgrade Lieutenant. To maintain an updated Captain's Eligibility List, a Civil Service examination will be given in odd numbered years to employees within the Department with at least eight (8) years' of progressively responsible fire service experience or education, two (2) of which are as a Pasco Fire Lieutenant or to employees who have been on two (2) most recent and consecutive Lieutenant promotional lists. Employees shall be given a six (6) month notification that a Captain's Civil Service Examination will be given. Section 32.3 Temporary Upgrade — Lieutenant. If there is no Lieutenant on duty to fill a temporary Captain upgrade, the employee with the highest score on the Lieutenant's Eligibility List, amongst the duty shift, shall be upgraded to Lieutenant, unless an officer has accepted a regular shift manning overtime for a full or partial shift. In the event no one from the eligibility list is on the shift, then the senior firefighter with regard to continuous service shall be appointed to the upgrade. The firefighter shall be allowed to refuse an upgrade to Lieutenant, provided that another member of the shift accepts the upgrade and no overtime costs are incurred. To maintain an updated Lieutenant's Eligibility List, a Civil Service examination will be given in even numbered years to employees within the department with at least four (4) years' of fire service experience or education, two of which are with the Pasco Fire Department. Employee shall be given a six (6) month notification of a Lieutenant examination. NOTE"The City reserves the right to recruit and give the examinations to persons outside the department if no employees apply, pass or qualify for bargaining unit positions. ARTICLE 33 — STATION BIDDING Since the Pasco Fire Department operates out of multiple fire stations, employees on each of the (3) three shifts A, B, and C, will be allowed to bid for station assignments every two years on their shift. Management will coordinate the bid process. The Fire Chief shall issue a memorandum with an accompanying Station Bid form to each employee and record each response until all of the station assignments for each shift are completed. The employees within each classification on their respective shift shall bid based on descending seniority with the most senior having preference on 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 27 Page 324 of 336 station assignments. The order of bidding will start with the Captains and be followed by the Lieutenants, the Firefighter/Paramedics, and then the Firefighters. Battalion Chiefs will not bid on station assignments. Seniority is defined in Article 44 — Personnel Reduction. Bidding will not occur due to vacancies. Notwithstanding the above, the Fire Chief, at his discretion and for reasonable cause, may make changes in the shift or station assignments to meet the operational needs of the department, including, but not limited, to staffing of shift officers and firefighter/paramedics. Except in emergencies, thirty (30) days advanced notice will be given any employee who will be transferred and the Fire Chief shall provide a statement in writing to the affected employee(s) giving the reasons for the transfer. ARTICLE 34 — PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES Employees new to the Pasco Fire Department shall not be entitled to take vacation or holiday leave unless authorized by the Fire Chief. The employee will earn vacation credit and holiday hours in accordance with Article 14 and Article 17. Sick leave shall be earned and utilized in accordance with Article 15. However, the employee must provide documentation (a written explanation from health care provider or employee) to the Fire Chief or his designee for all sick leave used. New employees who do not pass their probation for any reason shall not receive any accumulated leave benefits under this agreement, except any holiday hours they have accrued. Regular employees of the Pasco Fire Department that have been promoted shall serve a twelve (12) month probationary period. If the member does not pass probation they shall be allowed to return to the position they held prior to the promotion. While on probation the member shall maintain all rights in the collective bargaining agreement. ARTICLE 35 — PARAMEDIC PERSONNEL Section 35.1 The Union agrees to actively support the paramedic program and agrees to support the maintenance and operation of the paramedic program, as determined by the City, to provide an effective level of service to the community. Further, the Union shall work jointly with the City in securing committed applicants for open positions. Section 35.2 From time to time, as a local paramedic training program is available, the City may offer employees in the Firefighter classification the opportunity to participate in the local paramedic training program by reimbursement to the employee of their tuition and cost of their books and other training materials. Employees requesting employer assistance in paramedic training as set forth herein shall be screened by a committee whose membership shall include Union representatives. The committee shall rank and make recommendation to the Fire Chief of a list of the applicants showing the greatest potential to complete the training program and commitment to long-term paramedic service for the City. The Chief s determination as to the employee(s) selected for the City -assisted paramedic training program shall be final. 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 28 Page 325 of 336 Section 35.3 Employees selected for the paramedic training program by the Fire Chief, once enrolled, shall utilize their best efforts to successfully complete the program. Any request by trainees to drop out of the program must be made in writing to the Fire Chief. Approval to discontinue training shall be given only by the Fire Chief, with concurring approval of the City Manager. Section 35.4 Any Firefighter promoted to the Paramedic/Firefighter classification is expected to remain in the Paramedic/Firefighter classification unless promoted or permission is granted by the Fire Chief to transfer back to the Firefighter classification pursuant to Section 35.5 below. Section 35.5 Paramedic/Firefighter personnel may, after eight (8) years in the classification of Paramedic/Firefighter, make written request to the Fire Chief to be allowed to return to the Firefighter classification. The request shall be granted provided there are vacant Firefighter position(s) available in the Fire Department due to resignation, dismissal, promotion or expansion. In the event two or more Paramedic/Firefighters request reclassification to the Firefightcr classification and there are insufficient available positions, the most senior Paramedic/Firefighter shall have first preference. Seniority for purposes of this Article shall be determined by time served as a Paramedic/Firefighter with the City. Section 35.6 Those Paramedic/Firefighters promoted from the Firefighters classification prior to 1984 (or enrolled in a paramedic training program prior to 1984 and subsequently promoted to the Paramedic/Firefighter classification during the calendar year 1984) have the prevailing right to become decertified as a Paramedic and transfer back to the Firefighter classification, provided the City shall have not more than six (6) months (from the date it receives written request for such transfer) to effect the transfer and, provided further, the Union acknowledges and agrees the City is not obligated to create a new position to accommodate the transfer. ARTICLE 36 — INTER -FACILITY TRANSPORTS Section 36.1 The parties agree that inter -facility transports for Lourdes Medical Center and other care facilities for the aged and infirm in Pasco that are currently taking place at the time of the ratification of this collective bargaining agreement are within the scope of public services to be provided by the Fire Department. Section 36.2 Current Practice. Currently, the transports described in Section 36.1 are performed as a backup to a private transport provider, and are generally performed from Lourdes Medical Center to Kennewick General Hospital, Kadlec Medical Center or other area care facilities for the aged and 'infirm, and/or the transport of flight crews and/or patients to and from the Tri -Cities airport and Lourdes Medical Center. Dong -haul transports (transports outside of the Tri -Cities area) are not currently being performed by fire department personnel. In addition, the transports currently being performed are less than one (1) transport per twenty-four (24) hour shift on average over a period of ninety (90) consecutive days. Section 36.3 Negotiations. The parties agree to open bargaining on the impacts and effects of the transports described in Section 36.1 and Section 36.2 if the volume of transports exceeds one (1) transport per twenty-four (24) hour shift over a period of ninety (90) consecutive days, otherwise, 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 29 Page 326 of 336 the employer's obligation to participate in impacts and effects bargaining for making changes to the current practice described in Section 36.2 shall be consistent with requirements of Chapter 41.56 RCW. ARTICLE 37 — STAFF MEETINGS Section 37.1 Regular Meeting. A staff meeting comprised of the Fire Chief, Battalion Chiefs, and day shift personnel shall be called as often as determined by the Fire Chief, but not less than quarterly. The length of such meetings shall be determined by the Chief. Section 37.2 Decisions Regarding Department Operations. The Chief shall take into consideration the discussion and input he receives at the meetings in his decision-making concerning department operations. Nothing herein, however, shall be interpreted to prevent the Chief from making a change in department operations that he otherwise has the discretion to make. Section 37.3 Off -Duty Employees Required to Attend. Off --duty employees required to attend any staff meetings shall be paid at the overtime rate of pay. No call-back premium or minimum hours of pay requirement is applicable. ARTICLE 38 — RULES AND REGULATIONS The Union agrees that its members shall comply in full with Fire Department rules and regulations, as currently in effect or hereafter amended, including those relating to conduct and work performances. The Employer agrees that departmental rules and regulations which affect working conditions and performance shall be subject to the Grievance procedure. In addition, the employer agrees that any changes in rules and regulations which affect working conditions, other than for emergency matters, will be posted thirty (30) days in advance of their effective date, unless said posting period is waived by the Union. Inter -office memos that amend working conditions shall be incorporated in departmental rules and regulations within forty-five (45) days of the date issued. ARTICLE 39 — WORK REQUIREMENTS The City agrees that members of the Fire Department shall not be required to perform work normally performed by members of another Union or another City department outside of the station, except where danger to life and property exists. ARTICLE 44 — TOBACCO USE At the discretion of their immediate supervisor an employee may use tobacco products, but only outside any city fire station and off any city apparatus, vehicle or equipment and in accordance with State law. 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No, 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 30 Page 327 of 336 ARTICLE 41— SUBSTANCE FREE WORKPLACE The Substance Free Workplace policy consisting of seven pages and attached hereto as Appendix "C" is incorporated herein by this reference. ARTICLE 42 — OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT Employees holding outside jobs, including self-employment, shall not: (1) advertise on City property, (2) involve the use of City equipment or supplies; (3) infringe on their ability to do their job; (4) result in a conflict of interest. In cases where the City feels a problem exists, then the City must notify the employee and the Union of the perceived conflict in writing within 48 hours of notification. The Local may then file a formal grievance as allowed in Article 9 if this issue could not be resolved prior to the time line allowed in Article 9. The affected employee would be able to continue their outside employment during pendency of the grievance procedure. The parties agree that an expeditious resolution of the Grievance is desirable for all parties involved. Therefore the Local may initiate this type of grievance at the step 2 level of Article 9. Employees will notify the city at least 48 hours before commencing new outside employment. Notification will be by means of a form agreed to by the parties and as found in the appendices of this Collective Bargaining Agreement. ARTICLE 43 — PHYSICAL FITNESS Section 43.1 Goals and Testing. Employees agree to attempt to maintain an acceptable level of body fat (less than 20% and less than 25% for women). Employees further agree to attempt to maintain a rating of "adequate" or better on the performance standards for cardiovascular endurance, upper body strength, abdominal strength, and trunk flexion, set forth in the appendix to this Agreement Testing shall occur up to quarterly (four times a year) at the direction of management. All employees are required to participate in the required testing, except that members with temporary physical limitations which prevent or substantially hinder an employee from safely performing any or all of the tests, should be granted an exemption from those tests he or she cannot safely perform. To be eligible for such an exemption, a member must submit to the City a written statement from the member's physician establishing the condition or disability. If the City disagrees with the judgment of the member's physician, then the City shall have the right to have the member examined by the physician of its choice and at its expense. If the physician utilized by the City disagrees with the member's physician, then the two physicians shall select a third physician, who shall examine the employee at the City's expense. The judgment of the third physician as to the member's physical condition shall be binding, unless mutually agreed to the contrary by the parties. Section 43.2 Time. The hours of 1+600 to 1800, Monday through Friday, and 1300 to 1500, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, shall normally be utilized for physical fitness activities. These activities shall not, however, disrupt emergency duties or a scheduled training or work activity that for unanticipated reasons has carried over into the normal period of physical fitness activity. 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 31 Page 328 of 336 Section 43.3 Place. Physical fitness activities shall take place only in the assigned stations for all employees using the employer provided exercise equipment. Section 43.4 Physical Exam. Annually, all employees shall be given a baseline physical examination by Lourdes Occupational Health. Thereafter, the duty officer shall maintain a monthly log of each employee's weight, blood pressure, and resting heart rate. Costs for all testing shall be the responsibility of the City. Section 43.5 Physical Fitness Activities. Physical fitness activities shall be as follows: Normally, activities shall be performed for a minimum of one hour. All employees covered by this Agreement shall participate in physical fitness activity as time allows, excluding the time necessary for showers and changing, unless excused by the Fire Chief or his designee, or interrupted by emergency duties or an unanticipated unfinished work or training activity as set forth above. Employees may utilize all exercise equipment and facilities available in their program of exercise, subject to the following: A minimum of 10 minutes shall be spent on warm-up exercises and stretching, followed by a minimum of 20 minutes of weight/aerobic circuit training. The circuit shall include, minimally, the following weight exercises: Shoulder Press Sit-ups Abdominal Crunch Hip Extension Heel Raise Back Press Le Press Leg Curl Hip Flexor Chest Press Low Pulle -arm Curl Lat Pulldown Leg Squat Low Pulley -arm Curl Reverse Back Press During an exercise circuit, each weight training exercise shall be performed for 30 seconds. Between each weight training exercise shall be 30 seconds of aerobic activity. Typical aerobic activity shall be running in place, jumping jacks, or rope -skipping. Section 43.6 Record of Employee Participation. A record shall be completed by the duty officer to ensure that all on -duty employees complete the required circuit training. A check list shall be utilized for each employee showing the weight selected at each circuit weight station by the employee. The duty officer will determine by observation and/or questioning that each member has fulfilled the obligation. (a) If all personnel have completed their obligation, the duty officer will make a notation on the duty activity report to indicate that fact. (b) If the fitness activities have not been completed, the duty officer will make a notation on the daily activity report to indicate the fact. (c) The duty officer will complete a written report and attach the report to the daily activity report. This report will contain: 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 32 Page 329 of 336 1. The names of all persons not completing their obligation. 2. The reason(s) those persons did not complete their obligation. 3. The steps the duty officer took to cause those persons to fulfill their obligation. All exercise records shall be kept by the Fire Chief as part of the employee's permanent record. Section 43.7 Rales and Regulations/Safety Precautions. Employees shall follow all rules and regulations regarding the use of exercise equipment and wear proper clothing and safety devices when recommended for the physical activity they are performing. ARTICLE 44 — PERSONNEL REDUCTION Section 44.1 Reductions Re -Employment. In the case of a personnel reduction within any classification, the employee with the least seniority shall be laid off first. When two or more employees of the same classification being reduced have the same date of employment, they shall be laid off by inverse ranking off the Civil Service list from which they were hired. An employee being laid off may choose to transfer to a lower classification for which he is qualified and may do so provided he has more seniority than other employees occupying that classification. Any employee who has been laid off shall be first offered re-employment in a position within the bargaining unit which becomes vacant subsequent to the individual being laid off, provided the individual meets the minimum qualifications for the position and was laid off within the immediately preceding three (3) years. Any employee turning down the re-employment offer shall forfeit his right to future re-employment offers. Any employee(s) holding an officer position that was eliminated due to personnel reductions and who transferred to a lower classification shall be first offered the opportunity to return to his prior rank when a position becomes available. Section 44.2 Seniority Defined. Seniority shall be defined as the date of hiring to a regular full- time position. Rank shall be defined as Battalion Chief, Captain, Lieutenant, Paramedic - Firefighter and Firefighter. The rank of Paramedic-Firefightcr and Firefighter shall be considered the same with respect to the choosing of Kelly Days, Vacation, and Holiday time off. Section 44.3 Seniority Listing. A seniority list shall be maintained by the Department, verified by the local and updated as new employees are hired and existing employees leave city service. ARTICLE 45 -- DISCIPLINE Section 45.1 Just Cause. The City shall not take disciplinary action against any employee without just cause. The City retains the right to discharge new employees at will during or at the end of the probationary period and the discharge shall not be made the subject of a grievance either by the employee or the Union. Section 45.2 Progressive Discipline. The purpose of discipline is to correct behaviors which are in need of change. Informal discipline consists of coaching/counseling/teaching. Informal discipline notes/ documentation are for use by the employee's supervisor. Informal counseling may be documented 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 33 Page 330 of 336 on the corrective counseling form for annual performance evaluation purposes and is not placed in the official personnel file. Formal discipline of non -probationary employees in circumstances not warranting termination will normally follow a progressive disciplinary pattern with the objective of correcting the problem. When deciding the degree of discipline, the City will take into consideration the circumstances surrounding the incident(s), the severity of the offense, and the past work record and past conduct of the employee. When meeting with a management supervisor or at any hearing where discipline is being considered, the employee shall be entitled to union representation. The term progressive discipline, as used herein, refers to a discipline process normally including the following steps: (a) A verbal warning will be documented in writing and placed in the official personnel file. (b) A written reprimand (warning); discussion between the disciplined employee and administrative officers. The written reprimand shall be placed in the employee personnel file. (c) A 2nd written reprimand (warning) and referral to City Manager for possible suspension. (d) Yd written reprimand (warning) and referral to City Manager for demotion/suspension/ termination. At any time during this formal process an employee is entitled to union representation. This process normally shall be specific to each alleged violation. ARTICLE 46 — 40-HOURIWEEK UNIFORMED FIRE PERSONNEL 40-hr/week personnel under this contract will be governed by all articles of this collectively bargaining contract with the exceptions as below: Section 46.1. 40 hour/week personnel will generally be scheduled a 40 -hour work week, as approved by the Fire Chief. Section 46.2 Eleven (10 calendar, 1 personal) paid holidays per year, taken on the day of or as approved by the Fire Chief. Section 46.3 The following formula for accruing sick leave and vacation time will be utilized. The employee(s) in this category will earn leave time at 80% of the rate earned by 24-hour shift personnel as written in the collective bargaining agreement. Sick leave accrual: hrs/pay-period Vacation accrual: hrs/pay period 40 -hour 50 -hour Year 40 -hour 50 -hour 7.2 9 0-5 4.8 6 6-10 5.6 7 11-15 6.4 8 16-20 7.2 9 21+ 8.0 10 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining ,Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters -- Page 34 Page 331 of 336 When employees move from 24-hour shifts to 40-hours/week, they carry their current accruals with them at the amount shown on the accrual records. When they move from 40-hours/week positions to 24-hour shift positions they will again carry their current accruals with them to the new schedule. Maximum accruals will remain the same for both assignments. Section 46.4 In the event of a line officer position opening after two years, a 40-hour/week staff officer will have the right of first refusal for that position, providing s/he was number one on the eligibility list at the time of the staff appointment. 40-hourlweck staff officers below the number one position on the eligibility list will be considered for appointment along with the top two candidates on the new list. Section 46.5 40 hour/week personnel shall be able to fill a vacant line position equal to their rank and qualifications for up to twelve (12) hours and a maximum of six (6) times per year. This will be done on days approved by the Fire Chief or his designee. The intent of this article is to enable 40-hour/week personnel to maintain qualifications, such as paramedic qualification, without having to work overtime shifts. Section 46.6 40-hour/week personnel will be paid time and one-half, at their adjusted rate, if they work over forty (40) hours in the seven day period. 40 -hour personnel may respond to incidents in support of regular staffing as needed or directed. After hours response will be requested by the Fire Chief or his designee and agreed to by the 40-hour/week personnel. Overtime shall be paid for worked hours exceeding forty (40) in a seven (7) day period, from midnight Sunday to midnight Sunday. Holidays, when they fall on a regular schedule day of work for 40-hour/week personnel, shall count as hours worked for the purpose of figuring overtime. 40-hour/week personnel, at their choice, may be placed in the overtime rotation per terms of the current collective bargaining agreement. 40 -hour personnel may only work overtime positions during their scheduled days off. Section 46.7 Adjust base hourly rate for the 40-hour/week positions: Current base hourly rate X 2,600 hours / 2,080 hours + 5% day shift differential When applicable: Pay for longevity, paramedic or other applicable premiums will be added. Section 46.8 Vacation Cash Out. Employees entering their second (2nd) year of continuous service may cash out up to eighty (80) hours of vacation in April or December (total combination) each year. In order for vacation hours to be paid in April and/or December, the employee must submit a written request to the Chief at least two (2) weeks prior to the first payday in April and/or December. ARTICLE 47 — MODIFIED DUTY Section 47.1 Non -Work Related. LEOFF II employees who have a temporary medical condition that restricts their ability to perform their regular duties may agree to work modified duty assignments. The employee shall present the Fire Chief with a release form from his/her doctor that includes restrictions on the type of work the employee may perform. If possible, the release 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433,International Association of Fire Fighters -- Page 35 Page 332 of 336 form should include an estimated date of full recovery for return to full duty. The determination as to whether modified duty work exists rests solely with the Fire Chief. Hours worked shall not exceed the employee's assigned average work week. The actual number of hours worked will be agreed upon by the employee and the Fire Chief. Section 47.2 Work Related. LEOFF 11 employees who have a temporary disability that restricts their ability to perform the essential functions of their position may agree to work modified duty assignments. The employee shall present the Fire Chief with a release form from their medical provider that contains the current limitations and/or restrictions and if possible, the anticipated release to full duty. The determination as to whether modified duty work exists rests solely with the Fire Chief. Hours worked shall not exceed the employee's assigned average work week and the medical providers information. The actual number of hours worked will be agreed upon by the employee, and the Fire Chief. If an employee is offered modified duty for a work-related injury and does not accept, they will forfeit the benefit provided by Labor and Industries and/or Disability Leave Supplement for LEOFF 1I. However, this does not restrict the employee from using other accrued leave benefits for time off during modified duty. Section 47.3 Offering of Modified Duty. If more than one employee is eligible, as determined by their medical provider, and agrees to a modified duty assignment, the Fire Chief shall split available work as evenly as possible among the eligible employees. The splitting of available modified duty applies to both work and non -worked related medical conditions. ARTICLE 48 — WSCFF MEDICAL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT PLAN (MERP) The City shall contribute $75.00 per month on a pre-tax basis for all LEOFF 11 bargaining unit members to the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters (WSCFF) MERP. These contributions shall be included as salary for the purpose of calculating retirement benefits. The Union and the employees agree to hold the City harmless and indemnify the City from any and all liability, claims, demands, law suits, and/or losses, damage, or injury to persons or property, of whatsoever kind, arising from and in any way related to the implementation and administration of the Trust Fund. The Union and employees shall be one hundred percent (100%) liable for any and all liabilities inclusive of any federal, state, or local agency determination regarding any liabilities that arise out of the Trust Fund. The Union and employees shall be liable for any and all tax penalties, as well as any other liabilities arising out of the implementation and administration of the MERP. Under no circumstances whatsoever will the City be liable for direct pay of any MERP benefit to the employees and/or retired employees and/or their beneficiaries. 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 36 Page 333 of 336 ARTICLE 44 — EMERGENCY CALLBACK PAGERS Up to four (4) employees may check out and carry Emergency Callback Pagers for call -ins. The Fire Chief may allow an increase in the number of Emergency Callback Pagers at any time. Pager storage and check outs will take place at Station 82. Employees lowest on the overtime list shall have first choice for checking out and carrying an Emergency Callback Pager until 0800 hours. After 0800 hours, employees shall be allowed to check out Emergency Callback Pagers on a first come basis. Going off duty personnel may call and reserve a pager to allow travel time from their duty station to Station 82. After checking out and carrying an Emergency Callback Pager, employees shall return the pager to Station 82 by 0800. In compensation for carrying an Emergency Callback Pager, the employee will be paid thirty ($30.00) dollars for each uninterrupted twenty-four (24) hour shift carried. When an employee is paged, they shall receive sixty ($60.00) callback pay plus one hour minimum of overtime pay. When the employee is paged, or goes out of service during the twenty-four (24) hour period, they shall not receive the thirty ($30.00) dollars for carrying the pager. Any employee electing to carry an Emergency Callback Pager shall remain within a twenty (20) minute average response time to the City limits of Pasco, with their turnout gear, wild land gear and uniforms in their vehicle. When an employee is paged, s/he shall obey all traffic laws while responding to a fire station or an emergency scene. Emergency Call Pagers shall be activated whenever the on duty Battalion Chief has reason to believe that the Pasco Fire Department may be committed to providing and/or receiving Mutual Aid/Automatic Aid that may extend beyond thirty (30) minutes. The on -duty Battalion Chief shall activate Emergency Callback Pagers whenever the Pasco Fire Department resources are being depleted with multiple and/or extended calls. ARTICLE 50 — D SHIFT D -Shift Personnel. The city may employ up to (2) two personnel to work a D -shift (variable shift schedule). Provided, that this would be accomplished by hiring up to (2) two new personnel to fill these positions, in no circumstance will a current member be forced to work a D -shift (variable shift schedule). 1. Scheduling and Use of D -shift personnel: a) D -shift (variable shift personnel) may consist of up to (2) two personnel. b) D -shift schedules shall not include Kelly Days; these hours have been accounted for below in the number of shifts to be worked. 201$ - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 37 Page 334 of 336 c) Regular hours of D -shift employees shall be scheduled for three (3) (28) twenty-eight day work cycles at a time. The city shall provide a list of shifts within (30) days prior to the beginning of each scheduling period of three (3) (28) twenty-eight day work cycles from which D -shift employees shall make their shift selections. The D -shift schedule shall be posted (15) fifteen days prior to the beginning of each scheduling period of three (3) twenty-eight day (28) work cycles. 2. D -shift employees shall make their shift selections by rotating back and forth, starting with the D -shift employee with the most seniority. 3. D -shift employees shall not select more than (48) forty-eight hours of regular shift duty within any work week. This is not inclusive of any overtime shifts. 4. The shift selections provided by the city shall provide for a minimum of (14) fourteen choices for each D -shift position per (28) twenty-eight day work cycle. 5. D -shift (variable shift personnel) hourly pay rate shall be based on their Step as outlined in Article 23, Wages and Appendix A. 6. D -shift (variable shift personnel) shall earn Vacation, Holiday and Sick Leave accrual as outlined in those articles. D -shift (variable shift personnel) use of any time off benefits shall not count towards one of the employees off as allowed in Article 29, Section 29.4. Each D -shift employee shall schedule 192 regular hours in each (28) twenty-eight work cycle. This does not prohibit D -shift employees from working overtime or making shift trades. D - shift (variable shift personnel) shall be offered overtime and be paid for such overtime as allowed in Article 24, Overtime Fay 8. Each D -shift employee shall schedule 104 shifts or 2496 hours each year. Vacation leave and Holiday Leave hours will be subtracted from that total number. 9. D -shift employees may request to move a selected shift to another day, if available, with the approval of the Chief or designee, provided they shall not work more than (48) forty-eight hours of regular shift duty within any work week. When a request is made to move a shift, the Chief or designee may add choices to the original selection list. 10. Additional shifts may be made available due to disabilities, injuries, or extended leaves. D - shift employees may move selected shifts to cover these absences, or may be assigned by the Chief or designee if mutually agreed upon, provided they shall not work more than (48) forty- eight hours of regular shift duty within any work week. This is not inclusive of any overtime shifts. 11. The Chief or designee shall be responsible for posting and coordinate the selection process for all D -shift personnel. Any changes to schedules for the D -shift employees must be approved by the Chief or designee. 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No, 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 38 Page 335 of 336 12. Such items like employee evaluations for D -shift employees shall be completed by one of the Day shift officers. 13. D -shift employees shall be assigned to shift work unless mutually agreed upon between the city and the union. 14. In the event of any unforeseen scheduling problems, both parties agree to meet and mutually resolve the problem. 15. The D Shift (Variable Shift) shall be dissolved if at any time the city lowers manning levels below (4) four (24) twenty-four hour shift personnel at any station that has (2) two or more emergency response apparatus. This does not preclude the four (4) personnel from moving between the vehicles (shared crews) at their station. Personnel assigned to ARFF duty and/or the Battalion Chief while assigned to a command vehicle shall not count towards (1) one of the (4) four personnel on duty at a station. Dated at Pasco, Washington, this day of 2015. CITY OF PASCO Dave Zabell, City Manager ATTEST: Debbie L. Clark, City Clerk LOCAL #1433, I.A.F.F.: Frank Sydor, President IA FF #1433 Michael Maier, SecretarylTreasurer L4FF #1433 2016 - 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Pasco and Local No. 1433, International Association of Fire Fighters — Page 34 Page 336 of 336